← All Phrases

“Section 124(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 124Section 124(5)16 judgments

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 22(1), CHENNAI vs. EZHUMALAI, THIRUKAZHUKUNDRAM

ITA 4108/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4108/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, V Ezhumalai, Non Corporate Ward- S 1123, Ponpatharkoodam, 22(1), Tambaram Gangai Amman Koil Street, Thirukazhukundram, Chengalpattu – 603405 Pan: Acipe8113C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. V Aswathy – Jcit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”डी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCHES “D” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI

NATARAJAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO,ITWARD-1(1) , CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 123/CHNY/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

referred supra and find that the same is not applicable in this case as there is no discussion of embargo as enshrined under section 124(5) of the Act. The petitioner in the said case immediately challenged the jurisdiction by filing Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court

TIRUPATI JEWELS ,KAILASH COLONNY NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 30(6), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Tirupati Jewels Vs Ito Tirupati Jewels K-12, Kailash Ward- 30 (6) Colony New Delhi-110048, Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aajft4161A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

assessee that the said officer did not have jurisdiction in view of location of the bank account and/or petitioner's place of work. Section 124(5) of the Act saves assessment made by an assessing officer provided that the assessment does not bring to tax anything other than income accruing ... arising or received in that area over which the assessing officer exercises jurisdiction. However, notwithstanding Section 124(5), the Act does not postulate multiple assessments by different assessing officers, or assessment of part or portion of an income (see Kanji mal & Sons v. CIT [1983] 12 Taxman

MAHAVIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 8602/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Singhla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

technical plea of jurisdiction. It has, therefore, prescribed the limit up to which the plea of jurisdiction may be raised. As provided in Section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed ... that the said officer did not have jurisdiction in view of location of the bank account and/ or petitioner's place of work. Section 124(5) of the Act saves assessment made by an assessing officer provided that the assessment does not bring to tax anything other than income accruing

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

technical plea of jurisdiction. It has, therefore, prescribed the limit up to which the plea of jurisdiction may be raised. As provided in Section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed

SHIVA RANJANI VEJJA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 267/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 69A

assessee that the said officer did not have jurisdiction in view of location of the bank account and/or petitioner's place of work. Section 124(5) of the Act saves assessment made by an assessing officer provided that the assessment does not bring to tax anything other than income accruing ... arising or received in that area over which the assessing officer exercises jurisdiction. However, notwithstanding Section 124(5), the Act does not postulate multiple assessments by different assessing officers, or assessment of part or portion of an income [see Kanji mal & Sons v. CIT [1983112 Taxman 34/119821

M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 94/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

technical plea of jurisdiction. It has, therefore, prescribed the limit up to which the plea of jurisdiction may be raised. As provided in section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 76/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

technical plea of jurisdiction. It has, therefore, prescribed the limit up to which the plea of jurisdiction may be raised. As provided in section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed

BHARAT BHUSHAN VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of the observations above

ITA 236/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 236/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bharat Bhushan Verma Main Road, Verma Transport Bharat, Baikunth, P.O.-Baikunth, Raipur (C.G.)-493 116 Pan : Acdpv7254J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Oficer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

technical plea of jurisdiction. It has, therefore, prescribed the limit up to which the plea of jurisdiction may be raised. As provided in section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, 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

technical plea of jurisdiction. It has, therefore, prescribed the limit up to which the plea of jurisdiction may be raised. As provided in section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as.; soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed

SH. HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3642/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Saksham Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 64

issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of Ms. Jyotika Chandoke. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer has the inherent jurisdiction in view of Section 124(5) of the Act and, therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is valid. Appellant has deliberately used the PAN of his minor daughter for making investment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SOVERIGN COMMERCIAL P. LTD

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 164 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

raising an objection on the grounds of jurisdiction was prior to the completion of the assessment. It was held: "As provided in Section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SWASTIK COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 165 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

raising an objection on the grounds of jurisdiction was prior to the completion of the assessment. It was held: "As provided in Section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S TRISHUL COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 167 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

raising an objection on the grounds of jurisdiction was prior to the completion of the assessment. It was held: "As provided in Section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI vs. M/S PASUPATI NATH COMMR. P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 168 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

raising an objection on the grounds of jurisdiction was prior to the completion of the assessment. It was held: "As provided in Section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed

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

technical plea of jurisdiction. It has, therefore, prescribed the limit up to which the plea of jurisdiction may be raised. As provided in Section 124(5)(a), the right is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed ... Officer with reference to the assessment year 1985- 86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. 47. Section 124 (7) of old provisions and new Section 124(5) require clarification and elucidation. In Kanji Mal & Sons (supra), it was held that sub section (7) to Section 124 was an overriding clause that