Chander v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak

218 CTR 191High Court2008#23666 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 124(3)(c)Section 132 Section 132A Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

Judgments citing Chander v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak

Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

…herent lack of jurisdiction and that in any event it is not one for adjudication by the court". Several other judgments w.r.t section 124 are also in favour of revenue; Elite Pharmaceuticals in WP No.1172/2015 dt. 23.02.2016 (Cal). Subhash Chandra vs CIT in 218 CTR 191 (P & H). Pr. CIT vs Mega Corporation Itd ITA 128/2016 23.02.2017 (Delhi). CIT Vs Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) 337 ITR 64. 6. In Pr. CIT vs Mega Corporation Itd ITA 128/2016 dt. 23.02.2017 (Delhi), the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer on the basis that the incumbent officer who passed the assessme…

Raghav Kumar Dhoot, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

…date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148. It is held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Subhash Chander v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak [2008] 166 Taxman 307 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2008] 218 CTR 191 (Punjab & Haryana) [07-12-2007] that :-Section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Assessing Officer Jurisdiction of -Assessment year 1992-93 - Whether in terms of section 124(3)(b), jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by an assessee after expiry of one month from date of which he was served with a notice under section 1…

Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4452/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 263

…t of such contention, the ld. DR relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s British India Corp. Ltd. [2011] 33 ITR 64 (All.); ii) ACIT v/s Punjab Urban Development Authorities, [2014] 42 taxmann.com 160 (Chandigarh); iii) Subhash Chander v/s CIT, [2008] 218 CTR 191 (P&H). 5.3 The ld. DR referring to the provisions contained under section 2(7A), 2(28C), 2(1c), 116(cc), 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 127 of the Act and various other provisions of the Act emphasized that the term “Assessing Officer” would include Addl. CIT. He further submitted, as per section 2(28C) of the Act, the JCIT would also include Addl. CIT…