Section 120(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.241

Section 120(4)(b) falls under section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 241 (Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 241 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 120(4)(b) is CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137), cited in 96 of the 60 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 120(4)(b)

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
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. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd.
318 ITR 116 · 2009 · High Court
64
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
58
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
57
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".

CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal
190 ITR 56 · 1991 · High Court
45
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
34
citing judgments

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

CIT v. Jain Exports (P.) Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 540 · 2013 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A credit amount outstanding for several years cannot be treated as a remission or cessation of a trading liability under Section 41(1) merely because the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction or because the liability is barred by limitation.

M.V. Sonavala v. CIT
177 ITR 246 · 1989 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer can determine the annual value of a property based on what it might reasonably be let for from year to year or its annual ratable value, especially when rent is not charged or is below market rates. This approach is permissible under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Parle Plastic Ltd.
332 ITR 63 · 2011 · High Court
27
citing judgments

A loan or advance received by an assessee cannot be treated as such for the relevant previous year if it was not advanced by the lender during that year, even if there was an opening credit balance.

46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT
189 ITR 326 · 1991 · High Court
25
citing judgments

An assessee must raise objections regarding territorial jurisdiction before the assessment is completed. The Central Board of Revenue has the power to assign assessments to an Income Tax Officer of its choice.

Judgments on Section 120(4)(b)