Which cases are most cited on Section 120(5)?

CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 (110 ITR 453) — 62 citing judgments; Bimla Singh v. CIT (308 ITR 71) — 27 citing judgments; M/s Tata Sons Limited v. Hon'ble Bombay ITAT (76 Taxmann.com 126) — 24 citing judgments; AClT v. Cavikare (P) Ltd. (120 ITD 126) — 14 citing judgments; SIAL SBEC Bioenergy Ltd. v. DCIT (120 TTJ 711) — 14 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 120(5)?

BharatTax indexes 15 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 120(5) (Section 120(5)).

← All Phrases

“Section 120(5)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 120(5)?

CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 (110 ITR 453) is the decision most relied on for Section 120(5), cited in 62 judgments on BharatTax. An Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot reach a conclusion contrary to an earlier decision by another bench of the same Tribunal on identical facts, as the Tribunal acts as a consistent institution regardless of changes in its members.

Section References (mined)Section 120Section 120(5)15 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 120(5) is CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 (110 ITR 453), cited in 62 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 120(5)

CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416

110 ITR 453 · 1977 · High Court

citing judgments

An Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot reach a conclusion contrary to an earlier decision by another bench of the same Tribunal on identical facts, as the Tribunal acts as a consistent institution regardless of changes in its members.

Bimla Singh v. CIT

308 ITR 71 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

A difference between the registered value of a property and the assessee's declared value, if within a 10% tolerance limit, does not warrant an addition to income. Decisions rely on this case to argue that minor valuation discrepancies should not lead to additions.

M/s Tata Sons Limited v. Hon'ble Bombay ITAT

76 Taxmann.com 126 · 2016 · ITAT

citing judgments

An Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) can perform the functions and exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer only if specifically directed under section 120(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

AClT v. Cavikare (P) Ltd.

120 ITD 126 · ITAT

citing judgments

Section 139(5) regarding revision of returns is partly substantive and partly procedural, allowing for correction of omissions even in returns filed in response to a notice under Section 148.

SIAL SBEC Bioenergy Ltd. v. DCIT

120 TTJ 711 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

Steam is considered power, and its production qualifies for deductions under section 80-IA(4) even when used for captive consumption. The generation of steam is synonymous with the production of steam.

(i) Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh v. CIT

220 ITR 446 · 1996 · High Court

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer (AO) must have original jurisdiction over an assessee to validly issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Notices issued by a non-jurisdictional AO are considered invalid.

Judgments citing Section 120(5)

Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited, Village Valshind, Bhiwandi vs. Circle 1 Kalyan, Kalyan, Thane

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

ITA 5011/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194ISection 234FSection 250

Faceless Assessing Officer in proceedings under section 148 and subsequent assessment. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to contend that pursuant to section 120(5) and the notifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, including Notification No. 64/2020, the National Faceless Assessment Centre and its units exercise ... Officer of statutory jurisdiction conferred under section 120. The notifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in exercise of powers under section 120(5) contemplate concurrent exercise of powers by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the faceless units. The scheme, in our opinion, is therefore one of functional

Sapna Nainesh Jatania, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Dwarka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 469/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 120(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR

Sapna Nainesh Jatania, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 449/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 120(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR

Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi

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

ITA 291/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 120(5)Section 124(3)Section 127Section 127(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

introduced, yet the jurisdictional assessing officer continues to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with faceless assessing officer. In fact, pursuant to exercise of power under Section 120(5) of the Act which empowers CBDT to confer concurrent jurisdiction on two or more assessing officers for proper management of the work, the CBDT

Radhakishna Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

Abhay Hargovindbhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 17/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 17/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Abhay Hargovindbhai Patel Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 305, Dwarkeshdham,B/H. Samudra 1(3), Jamnagar Sales, Rajnagar, Aerodram Road, 1St Floor, Taranjali Building, Pn Jamnagar 361006 Marg, Aubpp7196D Jamnagar 361008 (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/07/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 08/11/2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Dated 26/11/2019, U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 1

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 120(5)Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Ita no. 17/rjt/2024 Abhay Hargovindbhai Patel IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

State Bank of India, Chennai vs. ACIT TDS, Chennai

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

ITA 1465/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1465/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 State Bank Of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Industrial Finance Branch, Income Tax, 103, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Tds Circle 3(1), [Tan:Ches02510E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Madan Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(1)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 17 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Passed Under Section 201/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate (virtual)For Respondent: Shri N. Madan Kumar, JCIT

Section 10(5)Section 192BSection 201

India about the details of their employees travels. Therefore, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that exemption under section 120(5) of the Act is not available for the employees claiming LTC involving foreign travel. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the present case

Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 1405/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

ITA No.1405/Bang/2024 Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Vijay Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3033/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

I.T.A. Nos. 3033, 3031 & 3032/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA

Hariom, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3032/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

I.T.A. Nos. 3033, 3031 & 3032/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA

Raj Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 3031/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

I.T.A. Nos. 3033, 3031 & 3032/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA

Balmukund M Vaishnav, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

Shabbir Lohar, Alirajpur vs. The ITO Jhabua, Jhabua

ITA 91/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Shrikrishna D. Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh AhirFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 120(5)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM