Which cases are most cited on Section 124(3)(b)?

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137) — 96 citing judgments; CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. (318 ITR 116) — 64 citing judgments; CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. (297 ITR 77) — 58 citing judgments; CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair (295 ITR 228) — 57 citing judgments; Bansilal B. Raisoni & Sons. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (101 Taxmann.com 20) — 46 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 124(3)(b)?

BharatTax indexes 42 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 124(3)(b) (Section 124(3)(b)).

← All Phrases

“Section 124(3)(b)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 124(3)(b)?

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137) is the decision most relied on for Section 124(3)(b), cited in 96 judgments on BharatTax. 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.

Section References (mined)Section 124Section 124(3)(b)42 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 124(3)(b) is CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137), cited in 96 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 124(3)(b)

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. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd.

318 ITR 116 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

When the valuation of closing stock is adjusted to include CENVAT or Modvat credit under Section 145A, a corresponding adjustment must also be made to the opening stock.

CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd.

297 ITR 77 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

When the Assessing Officer revalues the closing stock, the opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis to ensure consistency in the method of accounting and proper computation of business income.

CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair

295 ITR 228 · 2007 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The computation of deduction under Section 80HHC requires applying the formula: Profits derived from exports = (Profits of the business x Export Turnover) / Total Turnover. For this calculation, miscellaneous income, sundry sales, and income from services, if not directly relatable to export activity, are generally to be excluded from "profits of the business" and "total turnover".

Bansilal B. Raisoni & Sons. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

101 Taxmann.com 20 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

The time limit for objecting to an Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction under Section 124(3) does not apply when an assessee claims the officer acted wholly without jurisdiction or outside the authority of law. Objections to jurisdiction not relating to territorial matters are not subject to these time limits.

ITA Nos.162, 164, 165, 167 & 168 of 2002 Page 24 of 51 in CIT v. SS Ahluwalia

138 ITR 391 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

An appellate tribunal ought to remand a matter rather than set aside assessments entirely when jurisdiction is in question.

Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd. v. CIT

118 Taxmann 433 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

The Department cannot be blamed for delay in completing an assessment if the Assessing Officer could not perform their duties due to the assessee not furnishing evidence.

M.V. Sonavala v. CIT

177 ITR 246 · 1989 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer can determine the annual value of a property based on what it might reasonably be let for from year to year or its annual ratable value, especially when rent is not charged or is below market rates. This approach is permissible under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing Section 124(3)(b)

Kusum Dube, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7444/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54F

month. In the case of Abhishek Jain 94 taxmann.com 355, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that in terms of section 124(3)(b) jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by an assessee after expiry of one month from date on which ... month. In the case of Abhishek Jain 94 taxmann.com 355, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that in terms of section 124(3)(b) jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by an assessee after expiry of one month from date on which

Raghav Kumar Dhoot, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

Assessing Authonty (iii) Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO (High Court of Delhi) CWP No. 11844/2016 (2018) 94 taxmann.com355(Delhi) Whether in terms of section 124(3)(b) assessee could not call in question jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer after expiry of one month from date of a service of reassessment notice ... officer, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi)/[2018] 405 ITR 1 (Delhi) [01-06-2018] that in terms of section 124(3)(b) jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by an assessee after expiry of one month from date on which

Iqbal Shaik, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward International Taxation, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 67/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Kranthi Palivela And CA, MrudulathaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 127Section 129Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

also has not raised any objection over the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the assessee cannot question the jurisdiction in terms of section 124(3)(b) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, there is 11 ITA.No.67/Hyd./2025 no merit in the legal ground taken by the assessee ... Assessing Officer, in our considered view, the assessee cannot now question the jurisdiction at this stage. Further, as per the provisions of section 124(3)(b) of the Act, where an assessee has not filed return after expiry of the time allowed in the notice under section

Jaiprakash Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

return of income within the time allowed in the notice u/s 148 or notice u/s 144 of the Act. Consequently, in terms of section 124(3)(b) of the Act, the assessee is barred from challenging the Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer after the expiry of the time specified

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

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

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). 6.8 Further as per the provisions of Sec. 124(3) of the Act, there is a bar on the assessee in raising jurisdictional issue beyond