“Section 124(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 124Section 124(3)270 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 124(3) is CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale (124 ITR 391), cited in 181 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 124(3)

CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale

124 ITR 391 · 1980 · High Court

181

citing judgments

An Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act that widens the scope of the provision, rather than merely clarifying it, cannot be applied retrospectively to assessment periods prior to its effective date. Assessments must be made according to the law in force at the relevant time.

Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd.

124 Taxmann.com 249 · 2021 · Supreme Court

105

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice issued under Section 274 fails to specifically mention whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer must specify the exact charge for the penalty to be valid.

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation

305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

CIT v. Piara Singh

124 ITR 40 · 1980 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

When dealing with unaccounted transactions of purchase and sale, including those from an illegal business, only the profit or income earned from such sales can be assessed as undisclosed income and subjected to tax, not the entire sale proceeds.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh D. Patel

362 ITR 492 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act, which restricts an assessee from objecting to an Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, applies only to disputes concerning territorial jurisdiction as conferred by Section 120(1) or (2). It does not apply to objections regarding the Assessing Officer's inherent jurisdiction to frame an assessment.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

Abhishek Jain v. ITO

94 Taxmann.com 355 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer if an objection is not filed within the prescribed one-month period from the date of receiving a notice. Failure to raise a timely objection under Section 124 before the AO waives the right to dispute jurisdiction later.

(i) CIT v. Focus Exports (P.) Ltd.

51 Taxmann.com 46 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits or share application money is not permissible if the assessee satisfactorily explains the identity and creditworthiness of the investor and the genuineness of the transaction.

Judgments citing Section 124(3)

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8707/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

complete the assessment. The learned DR, further, by referring to the Tata Steel Ltd. ITA no.225/Mum./2014 ITA no.8707/Mum./2011 provisions of section 124(3) of the Act submitted that the assessee can question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer only within a period of one month after the receipt ... raised by the assessee, and therefore the challenge to jurisdiction now raised by the assessee is barred by limitation as provided under section 124(3) of the Act. 20. From the perusal of the documents placed on record by the assessee, we find that vide letter dated 22/11/2022, the assessee

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

jurisdiction over the assessee was of ITO, Ward-9, Kolkata. The ld. DR, on the other hand, pointing out to the provisions of section 124(3) has stated that the assessee never raised any objection relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment

Subhash Sharma., Belurmath vs. ACIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1100/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos.1099 & 1100/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Subhash Sharma Acit, Circle-47, Kolkata 322, Flat-3E, Tirupati Vs Building, G.T. Road, Block-I, Belurmath-711202. Pan: Altps 5888 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri S.L. Kochar & Shri A. Kochar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”] Both Dated 20.09.2023 For The Ay 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Kochar & Shri A. Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148

assessee did not challenge the jurisdiction within 30 days of issuance of notice and, therefore, in light of the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act since the assessee did not object within 30 days of the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the assessee could

Subhash Sharma, Belurmath vs. ACIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1099/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Kochar & Shri A. Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148

Ykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Signature Tower – A, Circle – 4(1) 14Th Floor, South City New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana Pan No. Aaacy 0460 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajkumar, C.A. Shri J. P. Sharma, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.1020/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Gurgaon In Appeal No. 314/17-18 Dated 20.11.2018 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 14.12.2017 By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). 2

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)

required to be quashed as void ab initio. When this was confronted to learned DR, he pointed out to the provisions of section 124(3) of the Act wherein it was mentioned that assessee should challenge within one month about the jurisdiction of the AO on receipt of the notice ... challenged the jurisdiction of the learned AO. In our considered opinion, this argument of the learned DR is wrong in as much as section 124(3) of the Act talks only about territorial jurisdiction, whereas the issue involved here is pecuniary jurisdiction. Further, the provisions of section 124(3

Pushpa Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -3(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyapushpa Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (3), Tg-6/8A, Sun City, Sector 54, Gurgaon. Gurgaon (Haryana).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pushpa Gupta, vs

Shri Raghvendra Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2416/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68Section 69CSection 94(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Dlf Urban Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle, 7(1), New Delhi

ITA 1962/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs Dlf Urban Pvt. Ltd., Circle 7(1), 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015 Pan: Aafcd3019C Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dlf Urban Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 15, Shivaji Marg, Circle 7(1), New Delhi – 110 015 New Delhi. Pan: Aafcd3019C (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Shri Satyajeet Goel & Shri Rajat Garg, Cas. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.06.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri R.S. SinghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

cannot take any such ground subsequent to the assessment during the course of appellate proceedings as an additional ground of appeal. As per section 124(3) of the Act, jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer / TPO cannot be called in question by an assessee after expiry of one month from date

Ambereen Islam., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir- 40, Kolkata.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1222/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

M/S Prudential Management Advisors Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 719/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 719/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Prudential Management Assistant Commissioner Of Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Suite No. 10, 5Th Floor Shantiniketan Building 8, Camac Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaecp2505Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) To Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.6,34,50,000/- On Account Of Loss On Sale Of Investments Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.25,33,00,386/- On Account Of Sundry Creditors U/S 41(1) Of The Act Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 41(1)

DCIT (Exemption) vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology reported in [2023] 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that Section 124(3)(a) of the Act precludes the assessee from 5 I.T.A. No. 719/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Prudential Management Advisors Pvt. Ltd. questioning ... above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is applicable on the assessee also because Section 124(3)(a) of the Act refers to various notices including those issued u/s 143(2) of the Act also and, therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down

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

Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner and not by the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 124(3)(b). Thus, the ITAT cannot entertain this ground of appeal on jurisdiction and it is a matter which can only be decided u/s 124(3 ... Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner and not by the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 124(3)(b). Thus, the ITAT cannot entertain this ground of appeal on jurisdiction and it is a matter which can only be decided u/s 124(3

Jet Lite (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6 (Now CC-1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR

Section 156Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

above stated position and specifically debars the AO to accept any claim otherwise than by way of revised Rol. 9.10 As per section 124(3), the jurisdiction can be challenged within limited time period (maximum one month from date of receipt of relevant notice). The relevant portion of the section

Vijay Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3033/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

assessee was waiting for time limitation to expire and, therefore the Hon’ble High Court held that in terms of section 124(3)(b), the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by an assessee after the expiry of one month from the date on which

Hariom, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3032/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

Raj Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3031/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

Staark Accessories Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 13(2)(2)

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

ITA 2418/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. Chhag, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 44A

service of notice." (Annexure D) Without prejudice to the above this additional ground should not be allowed at this stage as section 124(3) specifically bars a person from raising question about jurisdiction of AO after expiry of 1 month from the date of service of notice under section ... section, 124(3)(a) no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an assessing officer, where he has made a return under sec 139 (1), after the expiry of 1 month from the date on which he was served a notice under section

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

ITA 1355/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Page 1 of 23 ITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue stands dismissed

ITA 1354/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 124Section 2

first round of appeal before this Tribunal when this issue had already become time barred by virtue of the provisions of section 124(3). We therefore do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the assessee at this juncture belatedly. Accordingly the issue remitted by Hon’ble High

Shiva Ranjani Vejja, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 69A

department. This may kindly be noted. The assessee has not specifically challenged the receipt of notice u/s 148. ii. As per the section 124(3) the assessee can challenge the jurisdiction within 1 month after receipt of notice ... present set of facts. The HC of Delhi in the case of Abhishek Jam (2018) 94 taxmann.com 355 (Del) held that as per section 124(3)(b) assessee could not call-in question jurisdiction of an AO after expiry of one month from date of a service of reassessment notice

Jeeri Keerthana Reddy, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 19(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3224/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2017-18 Jeeri Keerthana Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, 382, 1St Cross Road, Koramangala Ward 19(2)(4), 4Th Block, Bengaluru – 560 008. Mumbai (Respondent) Pan : Allpj0661L (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 120Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

under Section 143(2) of the Act had raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of AO within 30 days as mandated by Section 124(3) of the said Act. The record further discloses that she had also made request for change of address/migration of PAN to Bangalore