“Section 124(4)”

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

outlined in the Act.\" (Emphasis Supplied)\nThe passage above reiterates the settled legal position that where a case falls within the scope of section 124(4) of the Income-tax Act, the question of jurisdiction must be resolved strictly in the manner prescribed under that provision and cannot be examined ... objections, including the manner and time within which such objections are to be raised and decided. Consequently, once a case is governed by section 124(4), the assessee is confined to the statutory remedy available therein.\nThe position is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Seth Teomal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. NEWBURY HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

assessee company was a non-resident entity. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding the provisions of section 124(4) was applicable in this case and also that order should have been passed considering the provisions of section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. NEWBURY HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

assessee company was a non-resident entity. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding the provisions of section 124(4) was applicable in this case and also that order should have been passed considering the provisions of section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. EICR (CYPRUS) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

assessee company was a non-resident entity. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding the provisions of section 124(4) was applicable in this case and also that order should have been passed considering the provisions of section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. EICR (CYPRUS) LTD., NEW DELHI

assessee company was a non-resident entity.\n6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred\nin holding the provisions of section 124(4) was applicable in\nthis case and also that order should have been passed\nconsidering the provisions of section 144C

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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 the records at one stage ... refer the question of jurisdiction to the Director General or Chief Commissioner as per the provisions of section 124(2) read with section 124(4) of the Act, as is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. 8. We are further of the view that it would not make

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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 the records at one stage ... refer the question of jurisdiction to the Director General or Chief Commissioner as per the provisions of section 124(2) read with section 124(4) of the Act, as is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. 8. We are further of the view that it would not make

RAM BAJAJ FOUNDATION,RNB HOUSE 1, SHIVAJI ENCLAVE, MAIN ROAD, NEAR RAJA GARDEN, WEST DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION) 2(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

erred, both on facts and in law, in proceeding with the assessment proceedings without considering the aspect of jurisdiction in terms of Section 124(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), despite the fact that the company has objected to assumption of jurisdiction. 2.(ii) That on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

erred, both on facts and in law, in proceeding with the assessment proceedings without considering the aspect of jurisdiction in terms of Section 124(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), despite the fact that the company has objected to assumption of jurisdiction. 2.(ii) That on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

erred, both on facts and in law, in proceeding with the assessment proceedings without considering the aspect of jurisdiction in terms of Section 124(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), despite the fact that the company has objected to assumption of jurisdiction. 2.(ii) That on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

erred, both on facts and in law, in proceeding with the assessment proceedings without considering the aspect of jurisdiction in terms of Section 124(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), despite the fact that the company has objected to assumption of jurisdiction. 2.(ii) That on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

erred, both on facts and in law, in proceeding with the assessment proceedings without considering the aspect of jurisdiction in terms of Section 124(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), despite the fact that the company has objected to assumption of jurisdiction. 2.(ii) That on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

curable defect but a substantive one that invalidates the assessment.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 6(3)(ii)", "Section 9(1)", "Section 124(4)", "Section 153C", "Section 144C", "Section 143(2)", "Section 144C(1)", "Section 144C(15)(b)", "Section 92CA(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the assessment orders are vitiated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

erred, both on facts and in law, in proceeding with the assessment proceedings without considering the aspect of jurisdiction in terms of Section 124(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), despite the fact that the company has objected to assumption of jurisdiction. 2.(ii) That on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEWBURY HOLDING TWO LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

draft assessment order renders the final assessment order void and unenforceable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 153C", "Section 6(3)(ii)", "Section 9(1)", "Section 124(4)", "Section 124", "Section 127", "Section 144C", "Section 143(2)", "Section 92CA", "Section 131", "Section 246A", "Section 147", "Section 154", "Section 253" ], "issues": "Whether

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

erred, both on facts and in law, in proceeding with the assessment proceedings without considering the aspect of jurisdiction in terms of Section 124(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), despite the fact that the company has objected to assumption of jurisdiction. 2.(ii) That on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

erred, both on facts and in law, in proceeding with the assessment proceedings without considering the aspect of jurisdiction in terms of Section 124(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), despite the fact that the company has objected to assumption of jurisdiction. 2.(ii) That on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ROLLAND ENTERPRISES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No.3348/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Ita No.3353/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Rolland Enterprises Ltd., Central Circle-19, C/O Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. New Delhi C-56, Lfg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Co No.352/Del/2015 (In Ita No.3348/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08) Co No.357/Del/2015 (In Ita No.3353/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13) Rolland Enterprises Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Adv. Central Circle-19, C-56, Lfg, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan : Aaccr7403D Assessees By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca, Pranav Yadav, Adv., Nippun Mittal, Ca & Ms Anjali Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr & Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.12.2023 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi.

erred, both on facts and in law, in proceeding with the assessment proceedings without considering the aspect of jurisdiction in terms of Section 124(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), despite the fact that the company has objected to assumption of jurisdiction. 2.(ii) That on the facts