Which cases are most cited on Section 120(4)?

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137) — 96 citing judgments; CIT v. Varas International (284 ITR 80) — 79 citing judgments; CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. (318 ITR 116) — 64 citing judgments; CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. (297 ITR 77) — 58 citing judgments; CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair (295 ITR 228) — 57 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 120(4)?

BharatTax indexes 48 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 120(4) (Section 120(4)).

← All Phrases

“Section 120(4)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 120(4)?

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137) is the decision most relied on for Section 120(4), cited in 96 judgments on BharatTax. 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.

Section References (mined)Section 120Section 120(4)48 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 120(4) is CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137), cited in 96 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 120(4)

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation

305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court

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. Varas International

284 ITR 80 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit additional legal grounds for the first time, even if not raised earlier, provided these grounds are purely legal, go to the root of the matter, and the relevant facts for their adjudication are already on record.

CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd.

318 ITR 116 · 2009 · High Court

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

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

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".

(4) ClT v. Manoj Jain

287 ITR 285 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

A District Valuation Officer (DVO) report, by itself, is not sufficient incriminating evidence to make additions for unexplained investments in a block assessment under Section 158BC. The revenue bears the primary burden of proof to establish undisclosed income, and a DVO opinion alone is also insufficient information for reopening an assessment under Section 147.

CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal

190 ITR 56 · 1991 · High Court

citing judgments

Payments made by an assessee to release property from an encumbrance or settle disputes, which are essential for a sale transaction to materialize, are allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act for computing capital gains. Such expenditure either reduces the full value of consideration or is deductible from it.

ITA Nos.162, 164, 165, 167 & 168 of 2002 Page 24 of 51 in CIT v. SS Ahluwalia

138 ITR 391 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

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

Judgments citing Section 120(4)

Jan Abhivyakti Samajik Vikas Sanstha, Raipur vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5565/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2024-25] Jan Abhivyankti Samajik Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vikas Sanstha, Lig-1361, (Central)-2, Room No.341, E-2, Sector-8, Housing Board Vs 2Nd Floor, Ara Centre, Colony, Saddu Mova, Raipur- Jhandewalan Extension, 492001 (C.G.) New Delhi-110055 Pan:Aabaj7197B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Section 12ASection 133A

Exemptions) does not retain concurrent jurisdiction once such transfer is effected.  By virtue of Notification No. 70/2014 dated 13.11.2014, read with Section 120(4)(b) and the Explanation to Section 127, PCIT (Central) is legally empowered to exercise all powers and functions stipulated in the Act in respect of such

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

could function as an Assessing Officer when jurisdiction have been assigned to him by virtue of the directions or orders issued under section 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, in the present case the Revenue Department has falled to produce any Order or Notification in favour

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Al-Arsh Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 227/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2014-15] Acit, Central Circle, Al-Arsh Exports Pvt Ltd., Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, 30, Bazar Lane, Cgo Complex-1, Vs C.P. Bengali Market, Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad, New Delhi-110001 Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan Aalca5543N Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.14/Del/2024 [In Ita No.227/Del/2024] [Assessment Year:2014-15] Al-Arsh Exports Pvt Ltd., Acit, Central Circle, Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, 30, Bazar Lane, C.P. Bengali Market, Vs Cgo Complex-1, New Delhi-110001 Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan Aalca5543N Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit(Dr) Assessee By Shri Swaran Singh, Ca & Shri Vipan Kundra, Ca Date Of Hearing 15.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

Section 120(4)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 68

liable to be quashed. ii That the reasons were recorded by the J.C.I.T.(OSD), Central Circle Ghaziabad, without there being any order under section 120(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, the J.C.I.T. (OSD), Central Circle Ghaziabad cannot act as an Assessing Officer defining under section

Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

conferred with necessary powers to do so. The assessee pleaded that the AO, i.e. Addl CIT, was not an AO in terms of section 120(4)(b), assuming he was, then for him to take charge as AO, there is necessary of an order u/s 127 for transfer of jurisdiction

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5031/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner could not be the Assessing Officer under section 2(7A) of the Act unless specifically directed under section 120(4)(b) of the Act to perform the functions of an AO and in the case of the Appellant, no such directions had been issued

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5029/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Dairy India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle - 7(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1987/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinderjit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range- 3, Delhi, who was not vested with jurisdiction over the case of the Appellant either under section 120(4)(b) or through a valid order of transfer under section 127 of the Act, and the subsequent assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner

Karan Motors Private Limited, Janakpuri, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 27, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarkaran Motors Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, A3-44, Third Floor, Central Circle-27, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaack0039L Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 120(2)Section 120(4)Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 19(1)Section 19(6)Section 2

such, he did not have the jurisdiction to make the assessment since the order granting him jurisdiction under Section 120(2) and Section 120(4) was not passed, as is evident from the assessment order for the impugned assessment year, hence assessment is illegal, invalid and, be quashed as such ... criteria namely territorial area, person or class of persons, income or class of income and cases or class of cases. According to Section 120(4) of the I.T. Act, Board may by general or special order authorise or empower Pr. Director General or Director General or Pr. Chief Commissioner

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

interpretation of provisions of Section 124(3)(a) and holding that the ACIT could not have completed the assessment by virtue of Section 120(4)(b). The assessee could have raised objection to jurisdiction only within a month. In the case of Abhishek Jain 94 taxmann.com ... interpretation of provisions of Section 124(3)(a) and holding that the ACIT could not have completed the assessment by virtue of Section 120(4)(b). The assessee could have raised objection to jurisdiction only within a month. In the case of Abhishek Jain 94 taxmann.com

ACIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1497/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Acit-14(2)(2) M/S. Pfizer Limited 461, 4Th Floor The Capital, 802/1901 Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Plot No. C-70, G Block M.K. Road Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 020. Bandra East, Mumbai 400 0051. Pan : Aaacp3334M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Vishal Kalra

passed the assessment order did not have jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in the absence of order issued to him under section 120(4)(b) of the IT Act conferring him with valid jurisdiction. As there is no order under section 127 of the I.T. Act, transferring the case ... quashed. 15. Per contra, Ld. DR filed a written submission dated 18.2.2025, in which it was stated that the copy of order under section 120(4)(b) and order under section 127 of the I.T. Act were not traceable because of lapse of time and after several cadre restructuring within

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

automatic concurrence on several AOs as presumed in the judgment of Abhishek Jain (supra), it was only done through on order under section 120(4)/(5). It was further submitted that under section 154(1), the ld. AO of that territorial area would have jurisdiction over an assessee

Mr. Rajesh Govind Chouhan, Pune vs. JCIT Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2590/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2590/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr.Rajesh Govind Chouhan, V The Joint Commissioner Plot No.14, Shree Hari S. Of Income-Tax, Central Banglow, Nandadeep Society, Circle-1(3), Pune. Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Maharashtra. Pan: Adlpc5054E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vindo Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 14.10.2024 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per

Section 120(4)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

M/S Truba Education Society, Bhopal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 801/IND/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

Section 11Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

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

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

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, Kadapa

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 670/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.A.Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR and

Section 132Section 56(1)(vii)

separate order u/s 120(4)(b) of the Act, to act as an Assessing Officer. Further, as per provisions of section 120(4)(b) of the Act, The Board, may by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein, authorise ... JCIT/Addl. CIT in cases of persons or classes of persons etc. If you go through provisions of section 2(7A) in conjunction with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, then it would be very clear that unless the JCIT/Addl. CIT is empowered by the Pr.CCIT/CCIT/Pr.CIT by an order

Dolphin Promoters and Builders, Raipur vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Raipur

ITA 58/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 801B(10)

delegation of such authority by the Board, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax as envisaged in the provisions of section 120(4)(b) of the Act, However, the power given to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax being in consequence upon ... Raipur record. Therefore, we are of the considered view that on both counts, i.e. absence of requisite orders authorising the Addi. CIT under section 120(4)(b) of the Act to act as an Assessing Officer as well as absence of requisite order under section 127 of the Act transferring

Mohd. Saleem Gulam Rasool Qureshi, Lucknow vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Lucknow

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

ITA 224/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 120(4)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)

Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT

ITO (It) TDS-2, Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act, in the absence of jurisdiction conferred on him vide order under section 120(4)(b) of the Act and also in the absence of an order transferring the jurisdiction under section 127 of the Act. The learned ... exercise the power of performing the functions of an Assessing Officer, without establishing that he possess such jurisdiction conferred on him under section 120(4)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of an order u/s 120(4)(b) conferring jurisdiction on the Additional Commissioner of Income

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8707/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Novrtis Inida Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 6832/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Bleand

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

exercise the powers of performing the functions of an assessing officer, without establishing that he possess such jurisdiction conferred on him under section 120(4)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of an order under Section 120(4)(b) conferring jurisdiction on the Addl. CIT the assessment order ... because: a. the Addl. CIT did not qualify to be the Assessing officer (the AO) in terms of section 2(7A) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (‘the Act’); and b. Assuming without admitting that he could be considered