← All Phrases

“Section 127(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 127Section 127(2)205 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 127(2) is CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175), cited in 207 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 127(2)

CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.
330 ITR 175 · 2011 · High Court
207
citing judgments

Disallowances made under various sections, such as for PF/ESIC contributions, result in an increase in business profits, and these enhanced profits are eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA. Similarly, gains from foreign exchange fluctuations directly linked to export sales are also eligible for deduction under Section 10A.

P.V. Doshi v. CIT
113 ITR 22 · 1978 · High Court
179
citing judgments

The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nizam's Suppl. Religious Endowment Trust
127 ITR 378 · 1981 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Income of a charitable trust, other than from a business undertaking covered by Section 11(4), is determined based on its books of account. Payments of income tax and wealth tax by the trust are considered an application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11.

DCIT v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology
151 Taxmann.com 434 · 2023 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

An assessee who participates in assessment proceedings without challenging the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, particularly concerning a Section 148 notice for reassessment, cannot subsequently dispute that jurisdiction.

CIT v. Sant Lal (2020) 423 ITR 1, Pr. CIT v. Manoj Hora
396 ITR 644 · 2017 · Reported
78
citing judgments

Additions to income based solely on a third party's statement are invalid, particularly when the assessee is not given an opportunity to cross-examine that third party.

CIT v. Shri Ram Pistons and Rings Ltd.
220 CTR 404 · 2008 · High Court
75
citing judgments

The Income Tax Department should not expend significant time and energy on tax-neutral issues that do not affect the overall tax collection, particularly when determining the year of taxability of income where tax rates remain constant.

Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 534 · 1998 · Supreme Court
72
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law or in violation of another statute is not deductible as business expenditure under Section 37(1) as it is against public policy. The Explanation to Section 37 reinforces that such expenditure is deemed not for business.

CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co.
370 ITR 87 · 2015 · High Court
68
citing judgments

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory, and its non-service or invalidity is not a curable procedural irregularity, rendering subsequent assessment proceedings void. Objections regarding non-service of notice, being a jurisdictional issue, can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

Judgments citing Section 127(2)

Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 21 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1235/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1235/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward 21(3)(1), Rupal Kahyap Mehta Income Tax Office, 26/27, A Wing, Ahuja Towers, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Dr. Raja Bhau Desai Road, Vs. Ss Roa Marg, Parel, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 012 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Agrpm5338E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, LdFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

PCIT of the existing charge as per the said section. The AR also drew our attention to the provisions of the section 127(2)(a) of the Act where it is necessary that both the PCITs, i.e., transferring the assessment jurisdiction and where it is being transferred should

Kashyap K. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1236/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1236/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Kashyap K. Mehta बिधम/ Acit-21(2) 26/27 A Wing, Ahuja Piramal Chambers, Dr. Ss Vs. Tower, Raja Bhau Desai Rao Marg, Parel Mumbai- Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400012. 400025. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafpm4290H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Ojha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai Dated 02.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal Submitted That The Assessee Is Raising The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Which Reads As Under: - “1. The Impugned Assessment Order Is Bad In Law Ab Initio As The Assessing Officer Who Passed The Same Did Not Have Any Valid Jurisdiction For The Purpose As No Mandatory Assessment Jurisdiction Transfer Order U/S 127(2) Of The Act Was Passed By The Pcit 27 Mumbai To Transfer The Same From The Earlier Assessing Officer Ito Ward 27(2) Mumbai To The Ward Ito 21(2) Mumbai Who Has Passed The Impugned Assessment Order As Is Clear From The Reply Dated 21.03.2022 Received Under The Rti Act In This Regard By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha (Sr. AR)
Section 127(2)Section 129Section 147Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL