How many judgments cite Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India?

46 judgments on BharatTax cite Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India (31 ITR 565), spanning 2014 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 127, Section 124, Section 142(1), Section 144, Section 144C, Section 115BBE.

Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India

31 ITR 565Supreme Court of India1957#2572 most cited

What is Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India authority for?

An assessee has no fundamental right to be assessed by a particular Assessing Officer or at a specific place. Orders transferring a case are administrative, for better revenue administration, and are not justiciable unless mala fides or clear prejudice is proven, with inconvenience not being a valid ground.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India · 31 ITR 565 · section 127 · section 124 · Assessing Officer jurisdiction · transfer of case · place of assessment · administrative order · fundamental right to choose AO · mala fides · prejudice · revenue exigencies

Sections most often in play

Section 127 Section 124 Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 144C Section 115BBE Section 120 Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 124(1)section 6(3)(ii)section 124(3)(a)section 271(1)(a)section 127(1)section 6(3)section 127(2)section 124(3)section 124 section 4a section 163 section 2(7a)

Judgments citing Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

ITA 5356/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153

…on of jurisdiction can be resolved only in the manner outlined in that section and it cannot be challenged before or decided by the appellate authorities. In fact this position cannot be challenged in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Seth Teomal [1959] 36 ITR 9. Since the statute itself provides for a remedy in cases which fall under sub-s. (4), the assessed cannot bypass that remedy and seek to agitate the matter in appeals before the appellate authorities in a case where sub-s. (4) applies either where he has raised an objection within the time outlined by the Act and that objection had bee determined on…

KALPESH RAVJIBHAI SOJITRA,JASDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in above terms

ITA 487/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…025 A.Y. 2017-18 6 Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra of law that jurisdiction is not a matter of convenience and for that learned Counsel relied on the following judgements: (i)CIT v. S. S. Gadgil (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC) (ii).Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India (1957) 31 ITR 565 (SC) The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the above cases held that a notice issued by an officer who does not possess jurisdiction is void, and such jurisdictional defects cannot be cured. 13. The ld.Counsel also states that Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rakesh Agarwal vs. UOI (2023) held that notices under sections 148/148A of the Act, iss…

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 509/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

…for proper administration of the Act.\n• The Court clarified that such transfer orders do not affect the inherent\njurisdiction of the officer and are not justiciable unless mala fides or clear\nprejudice is shown.\n• Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India (1957) 31 ITR 565 (SC) —\ninconvenience is not a ground; remedy lies against abusive exercise, not the\nprovision.\n• Aamby Valley Ltd. v. CIT (Bom HC) wide discretion for \"better\nadministration\"; not to be disturbed unless arbitrary/perverse/mala fide; assessee\ncannot choose AO.\n• Vishal Kumar v. CIT (Del HC) — once notice and opportunity are given, no\npreju…

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

…de for proper administration of the Act. • The Court clarified that such transfer orders do not affect the inherent jurisdiction of the officer and are not justiciable unless mala fides or clear prejudice is shown. • Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India (1957) 31 ITR 565 (SC) — inconvenience is not a ground; remedy lies against abusive exercise, not the provision. • Aamby Valley Ltd. v. CIT (Bom HC) — wide discretion for “better administration”; not to be disturbed unless arbitrary/perverse/mala fide; assessee cannot choose AO. • Vishal Kumar v. CIT (Del HC) — once notice and opportunity are given, no prejudice ar…

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

DNH SPINNERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal being infructuous is dismissed

ITA 2624/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: \nShri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Annavaram Kosuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 124(3)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 170(2)Section 80I

…T [1945] 13 ITR 39, Federal Court had\nheld that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal\nagainst the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by\nthe Supreme Court in Rai Bahadur Seth Teomalv. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 9 holding that the\nobjection as to the place of objection under the 1922 Act could not be made a subject\nor issue before the appellate forums including the Tribunal and reference to the High\nCourt. Thus, the question of place or authority of the particular Assessing Officer was\nthe matter of administrative convenience and not strictly a matter of…

HEMKUNT FOUNDATIONS,GURUGRAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) -1, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 631/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 & Stay Application No.329Del/2024 ( In Ita No. 631/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2021-22 Hemkunt Foundations, Vs. Principal Commissioner Plot No.809, Second Floor, Income Tax, Rd 42, Sector 42, Central-1, Gurugram, Haryana New Delhi Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaath8443C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, SumitFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Agarwal, Special Counsel and Shivansh Pandya, Jr. Standing

Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 80G

…e assessed either by a particular AO or at a particular place. (ii) Orders u/s 127 are passed in the interest of exigencies of Revenue Collection. (iii) That position has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court Constitution Bench in Pannalal Binraj Vs UOI (1957) 31 ITR 565 [5 JJ] [Para 29,31] and followed by Jurisdictional High Court in ATS Infrastructure Ltd Vs CIT (2009) 318 ITR 299 (Del) [Para 9, 10, 11] attached as S. No 4 and 7/Revenue's Judgement PB 2] 10. Learned Authorised Representative for the for Revenue submitted that Assessee has contended that PCIT-C 1 has no jurisdiction to cancel registration of asse…

RAMESH GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 30(4), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 930/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…he Sr. DR placing reliance on the decisions in cases of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh [1964] 51 ITR 566 (Pat.); Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC); Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC); Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal [1959]36 ITR 9 (SC); Sarupchand and Hukumchand [1953] 23 ITR 382 (MP) and Smt. Sohani Devi Jain v. ITO [1977] 109 ITR 130 (Gau), submitted that the jurisdictional issues could not be raised after the 7 completion of assessment as the same was not within the time prescribed under section 124(3) of the Act. 8. We heard both the parties and perused the material plac…

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 21(1), DELHI

ITA/124/2020HC Delhi08 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 56(2)(viia)

…under Section 127 of the Act, territorial nexus becomes irrelevant and what becomes more prominent are the interests of adjudication and collection of taxes. The Court in the said decision held as follows:- ―9. In Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India [1957] 31 ITR 565 (SC) the Constitution Bench had repulsed a siege laid to the vires of section 5 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee had one of its branches in Calcutta where the karta of the Hindu 2 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1627. 3 (1957) SCR 233. Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:08.05.2024 1…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39, Federal Court had held that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal against the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in RaiBahadur Seth Teomalv. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 9 holding that the objection as to the place of objection under the 1922 Act could not be made a subject or issue before the appellate forums including the Tribunal and reference to the Page No. 14 ITA NO.6832 & 6772/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03) CO NO.190/MUM/2011 M/s. Novartis India Limited High Court. Thus, the question of place or authority of the part…

M/S MATA ROAD CARRIERS,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri N.C.Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायपुर न्यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री अरुण खोड़वपया, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.79/BIL/2016 (Assessment Years: 2011-2012) Mata Road Carriers, Vs DCIT-1(1), Raipur In front of Lunkad Petrol Pump, Ring Road No.2, Hirapur, Raipur PAN No. :AAJFM 0294 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri N.C.Roy, Sr. DR सुििाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing…

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 124Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 234

…al Court had held that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal against the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in RaiBahadur Seth Teomal Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax,[1959] 36 ITR 9(SC) holding that the objection as to the place of objection under the 1922 Act could not be made a subject or issue before the appellate forums including the Tribunal and reference to the High Court. Thus, the question of place or authority of the particular Assessing Officer was the matter of administrative convenience and not strictly a matter of…

HAJARIMAL MISHRIMAL BAFANA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 176/JAB/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 43B

…ings under the Act in view of the clear mandate of law per sec. 124, requiring all such issues to be decided through the administrative route. This was also noted by the Tribunal per its recall order also, citing the decision in R.B. Seth Teomal v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 9 (SC), finding the same to be one of the fundamental flaws inflicting the Tribunal’s order dated 10/11/2017, even as the Tribunal’s order was without reference to the order under appeal before it. Case law in the matter is in fact legion, and toward which we may, only for the sake of completeness of our 4 | P a g e ITA Nos. 175 &176/JAB/2016 (A.Yrs…

M/S. EKALAVYA CAREER ACADEMY TRUST,SUNDERGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiam/S Ekalavya Career Academy Trust, Unitech House, Udit Nagar, Rourkela-769012 Sundargarh, Odisha Pan No.Aaate 3283 F ………………Assessee Versus Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela ………………..Revenue Shri Sidharth Ray/Binod Agarwal, Ars For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, In I.T.Appeal No.121/2012-13, Dated 29.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Assessee Has Raised A Legal Ground Which Reads As Under :- “A) For That The Transfer Of The Case For The Period 2010-11 By The Jcit To The File Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rourkela Vide Memo No.Ito/W-2/Rkl/Scrutiny/A.Y 2010-11 Dt.11Th October 2012, Is Without Jurisdiction As The Jcit Has No Power U/S 127 Of The It Act, Who Transferred The Case, Therefore The Order Of Assessment As Well As The Order Of Cit(A) Are Void Ab Initio & The Demand Raised In The Assessment Order Is Liable To Be Annulled.” 3. As The Above Ground Is Legal In Nature, Which Goes To The Root Of The Matter, Therefore, The Said Ground Was Heard First.

Section 120Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Ekalavya Career Academy Trust, Unitech House, Udit Nagar, Rourkela-769012 Sundargarh, Odisha PAN No.AAATE 3283 F ………………Assessee Versus ITO, Ward-2, Rourkela ………………..Revenue Shri Sidharth Ray/Binod Agarwal, ARs for the assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR for the Revenue Date of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :…

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1493/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

…transferring the the Assessing Officer to whom the case has been transferred. The assessee cannot be allowed latter to challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pannalal Binjraj vs. Union of India, 31 ITR 565 (SC) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shivabhai Khodabhai Patel vs. CIT, 244 ITR 457 (Guj.-HC). The Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Steel Engg. & Processing Works vs. Union of India, 243 ITR 721 (Pat.-HC) after referring to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pannalal Binjraj (supra) held to the same…

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1494/PUN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1492/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1296/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Leelavati Vijaykumar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Kotecha, 2(1), Nashik. 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Alvpk4435H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case Vide Ita Nos.1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13, Order Dated 26.04.2018 Had Adjudicated The Issue Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Above Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, On Miscellaneous

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 153ASection 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 292BSection 68

…jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to whom the case has been transferred. The assessee cannot be allowed latter to challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pannalal Binjraj vs. Union of India, 31 ITR 565 (SC) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shivabhai Khodabhai Patel vs. CIT, 244 ITR 457 (Guj.-HC). The Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Steel Engg. & Processing Works vs. Union of India, 243 ITR 721 (Pat.-HC) after referring to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pannalal Binjraj (supra) held to the same…

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3