Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2022 (10) TMI 764 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal quashes assessment for lack of jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. The Tribunal quashed the assessment due to lack of valid jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. Consequently, other issues raised by the assessee ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Tribunal quashes assessment for lack of jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No.1/2011.

                          The Tribunal quashed the assessment due to lack of valid jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. Consequently, other issues raised by the assessee regarding additions on merits were not adjudicated. The appeal was allowed solely on the grounds of invalid jurisdiction.




                          Issues Involved:

                          1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
                          2. Share of the assessee in the sold property.
                          3. Sale consideration for computing long-term capital gain.
                          4. Claim of stamp duty expense.
                          5. Claim of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement.
                          6. Claim under Section 54F.
                          7. Claim of home loan interest under Section 24(b).
                          8. Increase in house property income percentage.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:
                          The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, for framing the assessment. The assessee argued that per CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, the pecuniary jurisdiction over the case was vested with the Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhilai, as the returned income was above Rs.15 lacs. The Tribunal admitted this ground, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). The Tribunal concluded that the assessment framed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, was invalid and non-est as it was not in conformity with the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. The Tribunal relied on various judicial pronouncements, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments in UCO Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) and Commissioner of Customs Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 272 (SC), which held that CBDT Circulars/Instructions are binding on the department.

                          2. Share of the Assessee in the Sold Property:
                          The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of taking the share of the assessee in the sold property at 50% instead of 11%. However, as the Tribunal quashed the assessment order due to lack of jurisdiction, this issue was left open and not adjudicated on merits.

                          3. Sale Consideration for Computing Long-Term Capital Gain:
                          The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of taking the sale consideration as Rs.2,69,43,000/- instead of Rs.2,61,00,000/- (actual sale consideration). This issue was also left open due to the quashing of the assessment order.

                          4. Claim of Stamp Duty Expense:
                          The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of not allowing the stamp duty expense of Rs.22,83,000/- in computing the long-term capital gain. This issue was similarly left open.

                          5. Claim of Cost of Acquisition and Cost of Improvement:
                          The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of not allowing the claim of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement totaling Rs.30,04,144/-. This issue was left open due to the quashing of the assessment order.

                          6. Claim under Section 54F:
                          The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of not allowing the claim of Rs.14,75,197/- under Section 54F. This issue was also left open.

                          7. Claim of Home Loan Interest under Section 24(b):
                          The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the matter regarding the claim of home loan interest of Rs.17,51,509/- under Section 24(b). This issue was left open.

                          8. Increase in House Property Income Percentage:
                          The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of increasing house property income from 11% to 50%. This issue was also left open.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal quashed the assessment framed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai, for lack of valid jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011. Consequently, the other grounds raised by the assessee regarding the sustainability of the additions on merits were left open and not adjudicated. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on the grounds of invalid jurisdiction.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found