How many judgments cite Kusum Goyal v. ITO?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite Kusum Goyal v. ITO (329 ITR 283), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kusum Goyal v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 127, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 271(1)(c), Section 120.

Kusum Goyal v. ITO

329 ITR 283High Court2010#5507 most cited

What is Kusum Goyal v. ITO authority for?

An assessment cannot be automatically vested with a jurisdictional officer without a formal order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Even intra-city transfers require an order under Section 127.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kusum Goyal v. ITO · Section 127 · Section 127(1) · jurisdictional officer · assessment transfer · intra-city transfer · income tax assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 127 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 120 Section 158BD Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 127(1)section 158bd section 120 section 127 section 158b section 158 section 12 section 271(1)section 271 section 143(2)section 271(1)(c)section 142

Judgments citing Kusum Goyal v. ITO

Tripurari Singh., Howrah vs. I.T.O WD- 46(4), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 315/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254

…ening notice u/s. 147 of the Act and thereafter reassessment order both are without having territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us relied on jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Kusum Goel Vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Kol) wherein it is observed that the DCIT had south to justify his action by stating that the jurisdiction automatically got vested with the jurisdictional officer and no order u/s. 127 of the Act was required to be passed. The letter/notice dated 21.10.2009 was patently illegal since although in case of transfer within the same city, locality o…