← All Phrases

“Section 124(3)(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 124Section 124(3)(6)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 124(3)(6) is Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (118 Taxmann 433), cited in 28 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 124(3)(6)

Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd. v. CIT
118 Taxmann 433 · 2001 · High Court
28
citing judgments

The Department cannot be blamed for delay in completing an assessment if the Assessing Officer could not perform their duties due to the assessee not furnishing evidence.

CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited
298 ITR 67 · 2008 · High Court
22
citing judgments

An assessee is not liable to pay interest for failure to pay advance tax when the tax liability arose due to a law amendment made after the end of the financial year.

(P.) Ltd. v. ITO 9(1)(1), Mumbai
124 Taxmann.com 72 · 2021 · High Court
15
citing judgments

Cash credits received as share capital and share premium are considered unexplained under Section 68 if the assessee fails to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer can make an addition on this basis.

2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers
253 ITR 124 · 2002 · High Court
13
citing judgments

A revisionary order under Section 263 is invalid if it is based on the same facts and involves extensive enquiry after the assessment proceedings were completed, implying a lack of application of mind during the original assessment.

CIT v. Jagat Novel Exhibitors (P.) Ltd.
18 Taxmann.com 138 · 2012 · High Court
11
citing judgments

A notice or proceeding under the Income Tax Act will not be considered invalid due to a defect or omission if it serves its intended purpose and causes no prejudice to the assessee, as provided by Section 292B.

Judgments citing Section 124(3)(6)

Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 867/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.867/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nalinkant Shyamshanker The Ito बनाम/ Pandya Ward-1 V/S. Ramji Mandir Tekra Godhra – 389 001 Narmada Mandir Chandod, Dabhoi Vadodara – 391 105 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adupp 6004 C (अपीलाथ+/ Appellant) (&, यथ+/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/02/2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2019 Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

Having participated in the assessment proceedings, the assessee is now precluded from raising the objection about jurisdiction, in accordance with the provisions of section 124(3)(6) of the Act. The facts in the case of Pushpa Gupta (supra), relied upon by the assessee, is Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya