{"id":134,"date":"2008-09-15T16:29:04","date_gmt":"2008-09-15T16:29:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=134"},"modified":"2008-09-15T16:29:04","modified_gmt":"2008-09-15T16:29:04","slug":"cebon-india-vs-acit-itat-delhi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cebon-india-vs-acit-itat-delhi\/","title":{"rendered":"Cebon India vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/dlmonitor\/download.php?t=f&#038;i=84\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that s. 292BB was procedural and prospective. <\/p>\n<p>See also:  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/pdf\/eqbal_143_2__notice_service.pdf\"><strong>CIT vs. Eqbal Singh Sindhana<\/strong><\/a> (Del)<\/p>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that s. 292BB was procedural and prospective. <\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cebon-india-vs-acit-itat-delhi\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}