https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178682 The dominant issue was whether the assessment was vitiated for lack of territorial jurisdiction under s. 124 of the Income-tax Act after the assessee sought transfer of the case. The HC held that s. 124(3)(b) bars an assessee from calling an AO's jurisdiction in question after one month from service of notice under s. 142(1) or after completion of assessment, whichever is earlier; consequently, s. 124(4) and the obligation to refer the dispute to the competent authority under s. 124(2) arise only if a timely objection is made. As no jurisdictional objection was raised within the statutory period, and there was no effective transfer of records despite temporary movement, the assessment by the AO was upheld and the appeal dismissed. en-us Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 13:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178682 The dominant issue was whether the assessment was vitiated for lack of territorial jurisdiction under s. 124 of the Income-tax Act after the assessee sought transfer of the case. The HC held that s. 124(3)(b) bars an assessee from calling an AO's jurisdiction in question after one month from service of notice under s. 142(1) or after completion of assessment, whichever is earlier; consequently, s. 124(4) and the obligation to refer the dispute to the competent authority under s. 124(2) arise only if a timely objection is made. As no jurisdictional objection was raised within the statutory period, and there was no effective transfer of records despite temporary movement, the assessment by the AO was upheld and the appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178682