Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.242

Section 124(3) falls under section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 242 (Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 242 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 124(3) is CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137), cited in 96 of the 113 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 124(3)

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.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh D. Patel
362 ITR 492 · 2014 · High Court
91
citing judgments

Section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act, which restricts an assessee from objecting to an Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, applies only to disputes concerning territorial jurisdiction as conferred by Section 120(1) or (2). It does not apply to objections regarding the Assessing Officer's inherent jurisdiction to frame an assessment.

Abhishek Jain v. ITO
94 Taxmann.com 355 · 2018 · High Court
89
citing judgments

An assessee cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer if an objection is not filed within the prescribed one-month period from the date of receiving a notice. Failure to raise a timely objection under Section 124 before the AO waives the right to dispute jurisdiction later.

(i) CIT v. Focus Exports (P.) Ltd.
51 Taxmann.com 46 · 2014 · High Court
81
citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits or share application money is not permissible if the assessee satisfactorily explains the identity and creditworthiness of the investor and the genuineness of the transaction.

373 (Delhi-Trib), Satkar Fincap Ltd. v. ACIT CC-21, New Delhi
52 Taxmann.com 220 · 2014 · High Court
69
citing judgments

For a valid assessment under Section 153C against an 'other person', the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note must explicitly identify seized documents or assets found during a search that specifically belong to that 'other person'. Mere association or relationship with the searched assessee, without specific findings of belonging documents or assets, is insufficient to assume jurisdiction.

Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
337 ITR 389 · 2011 · High Court
68
citing judgments

The present case is cited as authority for the proposition that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are valid even if they do not refer to the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings, provided the reasons are communicated to the assessee. Furthermore, the issue of jurisdiction under Section 124(3) and the validity of notice under Section 143(2) are also key areas addressed.

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. Lalitkumar Bardia
84 Taxmann.com 213 · 2017 · High Court
49
citing judgments

An assessment order must be passed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Mere participation in assessment proceedings or acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction on an Assessing Officer who inherently lacks it. Waiver relates to rights or privileges, not the conferment of jurisdiction.

Judgments on Section 124(3)

Naresh Kumar, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. PCIT, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumarnaresh Kumar, Vs. Pcit Village Sikanderpur Jaipur (Badha), Vpo Sikanderpur, Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aabtb 7344 K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Thru V.C.) Respondent By : Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit Date Of Hearing 08.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:- The Present Appeal Was Originally Heard By The Division Bench Consisting Of Hon’Ble, Sh. Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai & Hon’Ble, Sh. Narinder Kumar. On Account Of A Difference Of Opinion Between The Hon’Ble Members On P A G E | 2 Naresh Kumar Certain Issues Arising In The Appeal, The Following Point(S) Of Difference Were Framed & Referred To The Hon’Bleof The Tribunal Under Section 255(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). “Whether Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case When The Ld. Ao Has Verified The Issue Of Chargeability Of Interest In Hands Of The Assessee & Taken A Plausible View. Whether That View Taken By The Ld. Ao Which Is One Of The Plausible View Can Be Subjected To Revision As Per Provision Of Section 263 Of The Act Or Not”

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar (thru V.C.)For Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145B(1)Section 255(4)Section 263Section 28Section 57