DCIT v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology

151 Taxmann.com 434Supreme Court of India2023#1334 most cited

What is DCIT v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology authority for?

An assessee who participates in assessment proceedings without challenging the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, particularly concerning a Section 148 notice for reassessment, cannot subsequently dispute that jurisdiction.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology · Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology · Section 148 · jurisdiction of Assessing Officer · challenge to jurisdiction · waiver of jurisdiction · reassessment notice · assessment validity · Section 147 · participation in proceedings · 151 Taxmann.com 434

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 148Section 1961Section 147Section 120

Issues it is cited on

section 124(3)(a)section 120(1)section 2(7)section 127(2)(a)section 120(4)(b)section 124(3)section 153cofsection 115whsection 115wfsection 163section 153aofsection 2(7a)

Judgments citing DCIT v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology

Jayesh Kanungo HUF, Khetwadi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6855/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Bijayananda Prusethjayesh Kanungo Huf Ito -19(2)(1), Mumbai 203, Rajgiri Apartment, A Wing, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 13Thkhetwadi Back Road, Mumbai Parel Mumbai 400012 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabhj8492E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar Singh a/w. Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri. Nakul Agrawal Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…hallenge the jurisdiction before him. In a recent judgment, Supreme Court of India, in the case 10 ITA No. 6855/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 Jayesh Kanungo HUF [2023] Dy Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption) Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, reported in 151 Taxmann.com 434, have, in the identical situation, held that the notice issued and assessment completed by the Assessing Officer was correct. Therefore, this ground of appeal cannot be entertained and is hereby Dismissed.” 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the paper book filed b…

Jagdish Kumar Yadav, Durg vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 593/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.593/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jagdish Kumar Yadav Near Boudh Vihar Near To S.V Public School, Shankar Nagar, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aakpy0660J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.593/RPR/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jagdish Kumar Yadav Near Boudh Vihar Near to S.V Public School, Shankar Nagar, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) PAN: AAKPY0660J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 02…

R A Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2275/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 R A Realtors Pvt. Ltd……….………………………………….……….……Appellant 5/6, I R Belilious Lane, Howrah -711101.. [PAN: AAFCR1049C] vs. ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Deep Agrawal, Adv., and Subhankar Ghosh, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Sandip Sarkar, JCIT – Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : December 09…

Hanuman Agro Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1306/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1306/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Hanuman Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Nicco House 6Th Floor, 2 Hare Street Kolkata, West Bengal-700001 Pan No. :Aaach 6578 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Assessment Order Of Page 1 Of First Line Wherein The It Is Mentioned That The Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Originally Was Filed On 31.10.2018. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed A Revised Return On 19.03.2019, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,64,350/-. It Was The Submission That The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1(2) Has Passed The Assessment Order. It Was The Submission That The Notice U/S.148 Of The Act In The Impugned Assessment Year Was Issued On 25.03.2025 By The Acit, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Notice Which Is Shown At Page 9 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows :-

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1306/KOL/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Hanuman Agro Industries, Vs DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Nicco House 6th floor, 2 Hare Street Kolkata, West Bengal-700001 PAN No. :AAACH 6578 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 1…

Manish Berlia, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2586/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR
Section 120

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.2586/KOL/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Manish Berlia, Vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 256 Block B 2nd Floor, Bangur Avenue, Kolkata-700055 PAN No. :ADDPB 8211 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तार…

Raghu Alekh Barli, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 915/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…f the notice, he is now barred from raising such an objection for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology 454 ITR 582. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that, in view of the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO if such objection is not raised within 30 days from the receipt of notice. The Ld. DR thus contended that, in the present case…

Bikaram Pushpender, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 1606/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…f the notice, he is now barred from raising such an objection for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology 454 ITR 582. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that, in view of the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO if such objection is not raised within 30 days from the receipt of notice. The Ld. DR thus contended that, in the present case…

Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy, Nalgonda vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1592/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 147Section 148

…econditions. (CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.)" (emphasis supplied by us) 19. We shall now advert to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC), that has been relied upon by the Ld. DR to impress upon us that as the assessee in the present case before us, had, within the time allowed by the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, dated Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy vs. DCIT 29/11/2023, i.e., period of 30 days, not called in question the jurisdiction of the ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad…

Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy, Nalgonda vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1591/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 147Section 148

…econditions. (CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.)" (emphasis supplied by us) 19. We shall now advert to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC), that has been relied upon by the Ld. DR to impress upon us that as the assessee in the present case before us, had, within the time allowed by the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, dated Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy vs. DCIT 29/11/2023, i.e., period of 30 days, not called in question the jurisdiction of the ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad…

Sanzyme Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 1487/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…f the notice, he is now barred from raising such an objection for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology 454 ITR 582. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that, in view of the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO if such objection is not raised within 30 days from the receipt of notice. The Ld. DR thus contended that, in the present case…

Vijay Kumar Patil, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation

ITA 1328/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1328/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Vijay Kumar Patil Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7(1) Pan:Aqopp2830M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sarang Shah राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: CA Sarang ShahFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 124Section 124(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

…f the notice, he is now barred from raising such an objection for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology 454 ITR 582. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that, in view of the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO if such objection is not raised within 30 Page 4 of 26 ITA No 1328 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Patil days from the receipt of notice…

Lingamgunta Adilaxmi, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

ITA 1317/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao &For Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…f the notice, he is now barred from raising such an objection for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology 454 ITR 582. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that, in view of the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO if such objection is not raised within 30 days from the receipt of notice. The Ld. DR thus contended that, in the present case…

The Ookal Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

ITA 1145/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…the same for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. DR to support her contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC). The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that, as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO if he does not do Society Limited VS. ITO so within 30 days of receipt of notice. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present cas…

The Ookal Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

ITA 1144/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…the same for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. DR to support her contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC). The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that, as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO if he does not do Society Limited VS. ITO so within 30 days of receipt of notice. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present cas…

The Ookal Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

ITA 1143/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…the same for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. DR to support her contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC). The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that, as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO if he does not do Society Limited VS. ITO so within 30 days of receipt of notice. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present cas…

ACIT Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Khadamat Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3766/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3766/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) Khadamat Integrated Solutions Private Limited, Unit No.103, 1st Floor, C and Vs. B Square, CTS No.95A, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400059. PAN: AAFCK4877R (Respondent) AND CO No.85/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.3766/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Khadamat Integrate…

Vikram Brahmendra Satyajit Mulpuri, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 534/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.534/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Vikram Brahmendra Satyajit Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mulpuri, Ward-3(1), Krishna District. Vijayawada. Pan: Aonpm1893G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

…vs. ITO for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. DR to support her contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC). The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present case, the assessee as requi…

Krishnaveni Kokkula, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 558/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 69A

…conditions. (CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.)" (emphasis supplied by us) 20. We shall now advert to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC), that has been relied upon by the Ld. DR to impress upon us that as the assessee in the present case before us, had, within the time allowed by the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, dated 16 Krishnaveni Kokkula vs. ITO 25/03/2023, i.e., period of 30 days, not called in question the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad, i.e., JAO, b…

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 387/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

…e first time in the course of the present proceedings before the Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. DR to support her aforesaid contention had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dy. CIT (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (2023) 454 ITR 582 (SC). Elaborating further on her contention, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in clear and unequivocal terms in its aforesaid order had observed that Section 124(3)(a) precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice. Accordingly, the Ld. Sr. DR submit…

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 386/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

…e first time in the course of the present proceedings before the Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. DR to support her aforesaid contention had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dy. CIT (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (2023) 454 ITR 582 (SC). Elaborating further on her contention, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in clear and unequivocal terms in its aforesaid order had observed that Section 124(3)(a) precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice. Accordingly, the Ld. Sr. DR submit…