← All Phrases

“Section 124(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 124Section 124(4)29 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 124(4) is Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (124 Taxmann.com 249), cited in 105 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 124(4)

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. 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.

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.

CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair
295 ITR 228 · 2007 · Supreme Court
57
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".

ITA Nos.162, 164, 165, 167 & 168 of 2002 Page 24 of 51 in CIT v. SS Ahluwalia
138 ITR 391 · 1982 · High Court
34
citing judgments

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

CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT
275 ITR 124 · 2005 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

The principle of judicial discipline requires consistency in following prior judicial pronouncements. This case is cited as authority for adhering to established legal principles.

Judgments citing Section 124(4)

Kunshan Q Tech Microelectronics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 5356/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 148Section 153

outlined in the Act." (Emphasis Supplied) The 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. The 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

ITA 5335/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

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

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

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

ITA 5334/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

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

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

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

ITA 5333/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

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

ITA 5332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

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

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

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

Deg Fashion and Lifestyles, Shillong vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

file his objections before the Ld. AO. In this regard, the provision of section 124(3) of the Act and provision of section 124(4) of the Act prescribe a mechanism for an assessee to ventilate the grievance regarding the issue of jurisdiction. Admittedly, as per the documents and material

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

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

ITA 1809/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 124(4)Section 144

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

ITA 4653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

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

ITA 4652/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

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

ITA 4651/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

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

ITA 4650/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

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

ITA 5396/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

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

ITA 3357/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)

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 allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 3356/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

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

ITA 3128/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)

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

ITA 3355/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 124Section 124(4)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

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

ITA 3354/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 124Section 124(4)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

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

ITA 3353/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

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.

For Respondent: Sh.Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &
Section 124Section 124(4)Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

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