← All Phrases

“Section 124(3)(b)”

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

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

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

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, 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
For Appellant: \nShri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Annavaram Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 124(3)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 170(2)Section 80I

nDirector General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner and not by the Tribunal or\nthe Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 124(3)(b).\n6.8 Further as per the provisions of Sec. 124(3) of the Act, there is a bar on the assessee in\nraising jurisdictional issue beyond

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

ITA 46/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nDINESH

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

ITA 45/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

{ "clean_text": "BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA\nDHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI\n\nआदेश / ORDER\n\nPER BENCH:\nThis is bunch of twenty

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 44/RJT/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

ITA 135/RJT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nDINESH

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

ITA 134/RJT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

ward- 55(1), New Delhi is directly applicable to the facts of the case where it\nwas held that \"In terms of Section 124(3)(b) Jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be\ncalled in question by an assessee after expiry of one month from the date on which ... ward- 55(1), New Delhi is directly applicable to the facts of the case where it\nwas held that \"In terms of Section 124(3)(b) Jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be\ncalled in question by an assessee after expiry of one month from the date on which

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

ITA 33/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nDINESH

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

ITA 31/RJT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nDINESH

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

ITA 16/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nDINESH

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

ITA 49/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nDINESH

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

ITA 4/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nDINESH

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 171/RJT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT\nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n&\nDINESH

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7444/DEL/1992[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2025AY 1989-90

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

ITO., WARD -6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIDHI JEWELLERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 755/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

there being any valid reason as to why it could not raise objections before the Assessing Officer. Further, as per the provisions of Section 124(3)(b) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Officer cannot be questioned by the assessee after expiry of one month from the date

SIDHI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 751/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

there being any valid reason as to why it could not raise objections before the Assessing Officer. Further, as per the provisions of Section 124(3)(b) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Officer cannot be questioned by the assessee after expiry of one month from the date

SIDHI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 750/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

there being any valid reason as to why it could not raise objections before the Assessing Officer. Further, as per the provisions of Section 124(3)(b) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Officer cannot be questioned by the assessee after expiry of one month from the date

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3