Section 127 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.243

Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 243 (Power to transfer cases) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 243 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 127 is CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175), cited in 207 of the 1,067 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 127

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.

Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT
49 Taxmann.com 465 · 2014 · High Court
195
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court affirms that additions made by the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings under Section 153A are valid when such additions are based on incriminating material found during a search. The decision did not address the validity of additions in the absence of incriminating material.

Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT
253 ITR 749 · 2002 · High Court
181
citing judgments

For a limited company, expenses cannot be disallowed merely on the grounds of presumed personal use of assets by directors or by treating the expenditure as a non-business purpose. Percentage disallowances of expenses in such cases are not sustainable.

PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
447 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

Appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) must be filed before the bench with territorial jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer's location or the assessee's principal place of business.

CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd.
61 Taxmann.com 45 · 2015 · High Court
177
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made when the assessee has deducted tax at a lesser rate, as opposed to no deduction. The second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is applicable retrospectively, mitigating disallowance where tax is deposited by the recipient.

Varghese v. ITO, Ernakulum
4 SCC 173 · 1981 · Reported
164
citing judgments

Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act are legally binding on the revenue authorities in their administration and implementation. This binding character applies even if the circulars depart from the correct interpretation of the law and cannot be ignored to the prejudice of the assessee.

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP
369 ITR 113 · 2014 · High Court
140
citing judgments

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

CIT v. Hotel Savera
239 ITR 795 · 1999 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When an assessee has sufficient interest-free own funds available to make interest-free advances or investments, it is presumed that such advances or investments are made from these interest-free funds, thereby preventing the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii).

Siksha v. CIT
194 ITR 548 · 1992 · High Court
111
citing judgments

Tribunals should consider questions of law arising from facts on record, even if raised for the first time, if the issue is jurisdictional and requires no further fact-finding.

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.

Judgments on Section 127

Shri Satish Kumar Khandelwal C/O- Kalani & Co., Ca, 5Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar, Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Jaipur, Ward-2(2)

ITA 734/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 734/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2008-09 Satish Kumar Khandelwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. F-24, Nandpuri, Hawa Sadak, Ward 2(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Akopk 0236 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 05/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Validity Of Order Passed By A.O. U/S 147 Of It Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 6,29,044/- By Treating The Income From Sale Of Property As Short Term Capital Gain As Against Income From Business & Profession Claimed By The Assessee. 2.1 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Above Addition By Applying Provision Of Section 50C Of The Act Without Considering The Fact That Assessee Purchased The Property In Auction From Uco Bank For Rs. 9,02,021/- On 2

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 124Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C