← All Phrases

“Section 124(3)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 124Section 124(3)(a)106 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 124(3)(a)

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
96
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
95
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
91
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
89
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
89
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
81
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)(a)

Man Diesel and Turbo India Pvt. Ltd (As Successor of Man Turbo India Pvt.Ltd), Maharashtra vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1319/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Man Diesel & Turbo India Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(1)(2) Pvt.Ltd. Vadodara. (As Successor Of Man Turbo India P. Ltd. E-73, Midc Area Waluj, Aurangabad Maharashtra 431 136. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Mehta & Shri Pratik Vora, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Ankit Jain Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/12/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Mehta, and Shri Pratik Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

jurisdiction by the AO in the name of MTIPL was ever raised by the assessee. That therefore by virtue of the provisions of section 124(3)(a), the assessee was now debarred from raising any objection to the jurisdiction assumed by the AO in the present case . In this regard ... ld.DR that since the assessee failed to exercise its option to object to the assessment proceedings in terms of provisions of section 124(3) of the Act, we do not find any merit in this argument. The right given to the assessee to object in terms of provisions of section

Mintu Das, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 28, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 8/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.08/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mintu Das………………………...………........………………....Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Kolkata –1. [Pan: Adppd3034M] Vs. Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Challenged The Validity Of The Assessment Proceedings Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Consequent To That, An Addition Of Rs.69,42,916/- U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act & Further Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.4,86,004/- U/S 69 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.16,50,920/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, within one month of the issue of notice in the light of the provisions of section 124(3)(a) of the Act. 7. Since the assessee, through the legal ground raised, is challenging the jurisdiction of the concerned Assessing Officer to frame ... 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