<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (4) TMI 2126 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471994</link>
    <description>Jurisdiction for a best-judgment assessment under Section 144 must be exercised by the competent assessing authority. Where the taxpayer resided and conducted proprietary business in Aizawl, and the disputed cash deposits were held in an Aizawl bank account, no material supported the Delhi officer&#039;s assumption of jurisdiction. The assessment was therefore treated as without jurisdiction and non est, resolving the jurisdictional issue in the taxpayer&#039;s favour.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 20:15:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=926019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 2126 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471994</link>
      <description>Jurisdiction for a best-judgment assessment under Section 144 must be exercised by the competent assessing authority. Where the taxpayer resided and conducted proprietary business in Aizawl, and the disputed cash deposits were held in an Aizawl bank account, no material supported the Delhi officer&#039;s assumption of jurisdiction. The assessment was therefore treated as without jurisdiction and non est, resolving the jurisdictional issue in the taxpayer&#039;s favour.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>