ACIT CC 2(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY CONSUMER PRODUCTS MARKETING LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 8152/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 September 2026AY 2013-20146 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in FMCG trading, filed its return declaring a loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) made significant additions, including transfer pricing adjustments and sales promotion expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) provided relief, leading to appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the assessment order was passed by an AO in Chennai, not Mumbai. Therefore, the appeal and cross-objection were dismissed on this technical ground.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Mumbai Bench) to hear appeals when the original assessment order was passed by an Assessing Officer located in a different jurisdiction (Chennai).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 253(4),Section 143(3),Section 144C(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & MS. RATNA DASGUPTA

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, CIT Sr. DR

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA 8152/MUM/2025
CO 42/MUM/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PE

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C(3)

All 587 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →