<?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>2006 (4) TMI 180 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57261</link>
    <description>An objection to the Assessing Officer&#039;s territorial jurisdiction failed because it was raised after notices had been issued and partly complied with, triggering the statutory bar on belated jurisdictional challenge. The assessment was valid where the return was filed before the officer having jurisdiction on the basis of the address stated in the return, the jurisdiction was not displaced, and the competent administrative authorities declined transfer during time-barring proceedings. The allocation of functions under the Income-tax Act was treated as procedural, and no prejudice or denial of justice was shown. The assessment and the appellate order sustaining it were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:47:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=95721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 180 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57261</link>
      <description>An objection to the Assessing Officer&#039;s territorial jurisdiction failed because it was raised after notices had been issued and partly complied with, triggering the statutory bar on belated jurisdictional challenge. The assessment was valid where the return was filed before the officer having jurisdiction on the basis of the address stated in the return, the jurisdiction was not displaced, and the competent administrative authorities declined transfer during time-barring proceedings. The allocation of functions under the Income-tax Act was treated as procedural, and no prejudice or denial of justice was shown. The assessment and the appellate order sustaining it were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57261</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>