1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Highlights
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The ITAT held that the assessee's belated challenge to the AO's jurisdiction under s.124 was not maintainable, as no objection was raised before the AO or CIT(A) within the statutory framework of s.124(3). Section 124 was treated as a self-contained code, and the additional ground on jurisdiction was dismissed. However, on the issue of addition towards alleged long-term capital gains, the ITAT found procedural infirmity because the CIT(A) relied on the AO's remand report without granting the assessee an opportunity to rebut it. In the interest of justice, the matter on capital gains was remanded to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
