← All Phrases

“Section 124(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 124Section 124(2)20 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 124(2) is CIT v. Piara Singh (124 ITR 40), cited in 95 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 124(2)

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.

CIT v. Norton Motors
275 ITR 595 · 2005 · High Court
71
citing judgments

Section 292B of the Income-tax Act applies only to technical defects and omissions, not to fundamental errors that vitiate the assessment itself. A reassessment notice, such as one issued under Section 148, if addressed to an incorrect person or in the wrong name, is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates the entire assessment and cannot be cured by Section 292B.

Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
337 ITR 389 · 2011 · High Court
68
citing judgments

The present case is cited as authority for the proposition that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are valid even if they do not refer to the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings, provided the reasons are communicated to the assessee. Furthermore, the issue of jurisdiction under Section 124(3) and the validity of notice under Section 143(2) are also key areas addressed.

CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd.
318 ITR 116 · 2009 · High Court
64
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
58
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.

PCIT, Central-3 v. Allied Perfumers (P.) Ltd.
124 Taxmann.com 358 · 2021 · High Court
54
citing judgments

The case is cited for various issues including the definition of capital assets, reassessment procedures under sections 153A and 153C, and the effect of clarificatory amendments.

CIT v. Lalitkumar Bardia
84 Taxmann.com 213 · 2017 · High Court
49
citing judgments

An assessment order must be passed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Mere participation in assessment proceedings or acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction on an Assessing Officer who inherently lacks it. Waiver relates to rights or privileges, not the conferment of jurisdiction.

Judgments citing Section 124(2)

Shiv Extrusion, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 250

Appellant's challenge to his jurisdiction (based on pecuniary limits and jurisdictional orders under Section 120) himself in the order u/s 148A(d) Section 124(2) (or 124(3) Shiv Extrusion vs. ITO as cited by assessee) mandates that when the assessee questions the AD's jurisdiction, the AD must

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

change of jurisdiction from one State to another State, or it will require meeting the requirements of Section 124(1)(a) read with Section 124(2) of the Act, for which separate application is required to be filed and an enquiry is to be conducted by the Relevant Officers ... change of jurisdiction from one State to another State , or it will require meeting the requirements of Section 124(l)(a) read with Section 124(2) of the Act, for which separate application is required to be filed and an enquiry is to be conducted by the Relevant Officers

ACIT Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Khadamat Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3766/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, 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

physical interface. • The assessee is a non-resident; change of station causes no inconvenience in the faceless regime. • The assessee never objected under Section 124(2); did not honor the discipline laid down in GKN Driveshafts regarding objections. • PAN transfer (Delhi→Jaipur) per se is not prejudicial: the property linked ... Assessee was a non-resident and hence change of station show no miss- connivence • The assessee has not objected the proceedings as per section 124(2) • The assessee has not respected dither findings as held in GKN Drive Shaft of the Hon'ble Apex Court • The assessee has filed WRIT

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, 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

physical interface. • The assessee is a non-resident; change of station causes no inconvenience in the faceless regime. • The assessee never objected under Section 124(2); did not honor the discipline laid down in GKN Driveshafts regarding objections. PAN transfer (Delhi→Jaipur) per se is not prejudicial: the property linked ... Assessee was a non-resident and hence change of station show no miss- connivence • The assessee has not objected the proceedings as per section 124(2) • The assessee has not respected dither findings as held in GKN Drive Shaft of the Hon’ble Apex Court • The assessee has filed WRIT

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, 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

physical interface. • The assessee is a non-resident; change of station causes no inconvenience in the faceless regime. • The assessee never objected under Section 124(2); did not honor the discipline laid down in GKN Driveshafts regarding objections. PAN transfer (Delhi→Jaipur) per se is not prejudicial: the property linked ... Assessee was a non-resident and hence change of station show no miss- connivence • The assessee has not objected the proceedings as per section 124(2) • The assessee has not respected dither findings as held in GKN Drive Shaft of the Hon’ble Apex Court • The assessee has filed WRIT

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, 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

physical interface. • The assessee is a non-resident; change of station causes no inconvenience in the faceless regime. • The assessee never objected under Section 124(2); did not honor the discipline laid down in GKN Driveshafts regarding objections. PAN transfer (Delhi→Jaipur) per se is not prejudicial: the property linked ... Assessee was a non-resident and hence change of station show no miss- connivence • The assessee has not objected the proceedings as per section 124(2) • The assessee has not respected dither findings as held in GKN Drive Shaft of the Hon’ble Apex Court • The assessee has filed WRIT

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, 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

physical interface. • The assessee is a non-resident; change of station causes no inconvenience in the faceless regime. • The assessee never objected under Section 124(2); did not honor the discipline laid down in GKN Driveshafts regarding objections. PAN transfer (Delhi→Jaipur) per se is not prejudicial: the property linked ... Assessee was a non-resident and hence change of station show no miss- connivence • The assessee has not objected the proceedings as per section 124(2) • The assessee has not respected dither findings as held in GKN Drive Shaft of the Hon’ble Apex Court • The assessee has filed WRIT

Mahavir Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 379/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalmahavir Pukhraj Jain Vs. Dcit, Circle – 42(1)(1) Flat No. 603/B, Manan Kautilya Bhawan, Apartment, New Link Road, Aenue -3, Near Videsh Dahisar East, Mumbai – Bhavan, G-Block, Bkc 400068. Bandra (E) – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Adepj8540R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 124(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

direction or order issued under Section 120 vesting with jurisdiction in the Assessing Officer over any area, limits of an area, etc. Section 124(2) provides that where a question arises under this Section as to whether the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question will have

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

under obligation for the AO to refer the question of jurisdiction to the DG or Chief Commissioner as per the provisions of Section 124(2) read with Section 124(4) of the Act as contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee. Hon’ble High Court noted the fact that ... refer the matter for determination to the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner as per the provisions of section 124(2) of the Act. It is, thus, evident that before the expiry of the period of one month from the date of service of notice under

Gajgamini Investment & Finance P. Ltd.. (Successor to Viloma Equity Services P. Ltd.), Andheri (East) vs. ITO Ward 11(3)(3), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5951/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosaingajgamini Investment & Vs. Ito, Ward 11(3)(3) Finance P. Ltd., 429, 4Th Floor, Aaykar (Successor To Viloma Equity Bhavan, Mk Road, Services P. Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. Office No. 102, A Wing, 1St Floor, Mittal Commercial, Near Mittal Indl. Estate, Andheri Kurla Road – 400059. Pan/Gir No. Aabcg3951A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

direction or order issued under Section 120 vesting with jurisdiction in the Assessing Officer over any area, limits of an area, etc. Section 124(2) provides that where a question arises under this Section as to whether the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question will have

Poonam Sen, Lucknow vs. ITO, Range 1(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 70/LKW/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 Poonam Sen, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/73, Viram Khand, Gomti Range-1(3), Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Pan: Bacps7483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Lucknow Dated 4.08.2020, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito-1(3), Lucknow, Passed Under Section 147/144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Has Erred In Law, In Confirming Order U/S 147/144 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961 In The Present Case As The Notice Issued U/S 148 By The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly (Here-In After Referred To As The Ito, Bareilly) Was Issued Without Any Jurisdiction & Thus As The Notice So Issued U/S 148 Itself Is Issued Without Jurisdiction The Culmination Of The Same In The Present Order Is Void-Ab- Initio & Bad-In-Law & Thus The Order May Kindly Be Annulled. Ii. On The Fact & In The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Present Case The Reasons So Recorded By The Ito, Bareilly Itself Are Vitiated As The Appellant Had Made A True & Fair Disclosure & That The Investment So Made Cannot Be Disclosed In The Return So Filed & Further As Per The Reasons Recorded The Income Escaping Assessment Is Of Rs.65,73,000/- & Whereas The Addition Towards Purchase Has Been Made Of Rs.16,92,000/- Only & Thus The Addition Is Devoid Of Any Merit & Needs To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Grounds Nos. I & Ii Above:

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

persons/class of income/group of case basis, then the question of jurisdiction was to be resolved by the Competent Authority as provided under section 124(2). The ld. AR further submitted that section 124(2) had to be resorted to Suo Moto by the ld. AO without awaiting the objection

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

under obligation for the AO to refer the question of jurisdiction to the DG or Chief Commissioner as per the provisions of Section 124(2) read with Section 124(4) of the Act as contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee. Hon’ble High Court noted the fact that ... refer the matter for determination to the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner as per the provisions of section 124(2) of the Act. It is, thus, evident that before the expiry of the period of one month from the date of service of notice under

Aruna Tiwari, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Emerson Network Power (India) P.Ltd, Thane vs. Addl CIT RG 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1771/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

vested under sub-section (i) or sub-section (2) of section 120. An objection to such jurisdiction can be raised in terms of section 124(2). In terms of sub-section (3) of section 124, right to raise such objection shall be foregone beyond the stages mentioned therein. The said ... vested under sub-section (i) or sub-section (2) of section 120. An objection to such jurisdiction can be raised in terms of section 124(2). In terms of sub-section () of section 124, right to raise such objection shall be foregone beyond the stages mentioned therein. The said provisions

Emerson Network Power (India) P. Ltd, Thane vs. JCIT RG 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1975/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

vested under sub-section (i) or sub-section (2) of section 120. An objection to such jurisdiction can be raised in terms of section 124(2). In terms of sub-section (3) of section 124, right to raise such objection shall be foregone beyond the stages mentioned therein. The said ... vested under sub-section (i) or sub-section (2) of section 120. An objection to such jurisdiction can be raised in terms of section 124(2). In terms of sub-section () of section 124, right to raise such objection shall be foregone beyond the stages mentioned therein. The said provisions

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer issued under section 120, the same shall be determined by the Income-Tax Authorities mentioned in section 124(2) of the Act. Further, the section 124(3) prescribe that no person shall be entitled to call in question jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in following ... then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of claim, refer the matter to the Income-tax Authorities mentioned in section 124(2) for determination of correct jurisdiction before the assessment made. 29. In the instant case before us, being case of no return filed, jurisdiction lied

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer issued under section 120, the same shall be determined by the Income-Tax Authorities mentioned in section 124(2) of the Act. Further, the section 124(3) prescribe that no person shall be entitled to call in question jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in following ... then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of claim, refer the matter to the Income-tax Authorities mentioned in section 124(2) for determination of correct jurisdiction before the assessment made. 29. In the instant case before us, being case of no return filed, jurisdiction lied

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uv Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6033/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri D.C. Agarwal. Adv
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 24

Ward 10(2), Kolkata should have referred the matter for determination of jurisdiction under section 124(4) before the higher authorities referred in section 124(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer, Kolkata has completely failed in discharging his obligations under the provisions of Section 124 ... Ward-10(2) did not have the statutory authority or power to proceed for making the assessment. Because, in such case invoking of Section 124(2) is mandatory and any violation thereof will invalidate the assessment. 10. Without prejudice, he further submitted that assessee has raised objection to the jurisdiction

Commssioner of Income Tax Delhi-Xvi vs. S.S. Ahluwalia

ITA - 255 / 2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

Some assessments had been made, while others were pending. Procedure under Section 124(2) was followed and it was held that the Assessing Officer at Delhi had jurisdiction as the petitioners had shifted their business and profession to New Delhi after they had closed their business and profession at Amritsar ... jurisdiction over the area where the business/profession of the petitioners was situated. If there was any doubt, the petitioners could have moved under Section 124(2) for determining the question of jurisdiction which the petitioners have not done. The proceedings finalised at Amritsar after the petitioners had ceased to have