← 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)

Atul Vrajlal Karia, Rajkot vs. Ac / Dc (Int.Txn), Rajkot

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

ITA 133/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.133/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Atul Vrajlal Karia Ac/Dc (Int. Txn), बनाम C/O. D.S. Karia & Co. Ca, 203, Rajkot Cosmo Complex, Mahila College Vs. Chowk, Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Adwpk6568J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250Section 282Section 69

assessing officer is required to pass an order u/s 127 of the Act. In order to substantiate this fact, the relevant extract of Section 127(2) of the Act is reproduced below for reference: “Power to transfer cases. Atul Vrajlal Karia ITA No.133 /RJT/2025 (AY : 2012-13) 8 127. (2 ... stated by revenue that there was no disagreement between two Commissioners. Whether transfer of file could not be said to be authorized under section 127(2)(a) even though there was no disagreement between two jurisdictional Commissioners - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned order of transfer could not be upheld -Held

Sumita Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3836/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsumita Singhal Income Tax Officer, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. Vs. New Delhi. Pan:Acops9544H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.R. Singla, Ca Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [ ‘Cit(A)’ In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Delhi-6/10307/2017-18 Dated 14.03.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 30.01.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,05,360/- With Ito Ward-40(1), Delhi. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 29.07.2016 By The Same Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Another Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.09.2016 By The Ito, Ward-71(2), New Delhi. On 04.09.2017 The Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito, Ward No.17(4), New Delhi. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) By The Ito, Ward-17(4), Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.49,65,760/- After Making Additions Of Rs.42,48,000/- By Holding The Long Term Capital Gain As Bogus & Further Addition Of Rs.2,12,400/- Was Made As Unexplained Expenditure

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee on the basis of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued by another Assessing Officer, without assuming jurisdiction under section 127(2) of the Act. 12. We find from the factual matrix of the case that the Assessee filed his Return of income