TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2001-02. Audit report dated 23.09.2010 in Form 3-CEB was filed on 23.09.2010. For the purpose of MAT u/s 115-JB of the Act book profit was returned at Rs. 37,53,675/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. 2.1 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 11.06.2012 was issued. Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 27.08.2012 was issued. Notice u/s. 143(2) dated 03.01.2013 and notices u/s 142(1) dated 05.02.2013 and 19.03.2013 were issued. Shri Indra Dev Narayan, CA filed details objection regarding jurisdiction was raised for the first time in letter dated 18.03.2013. 2.2 As per provisions of Section 124(3)(a) of the Act and the assessee can raise the issue or objection with regard to jurisdiction of Assessing Officer within one month of receipt of the notices which in the instant case expires on 01.10.2011. 2.3 Objections regarding jurisdiction were not raised in letters dated 05.09.2012 and 07.03.2013, therefore, objection with regard to jurisdiction being invalid was not resorted to within the permissible time. 3. On merits, the assessee contended that its jurisdiction lies with DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai is not sustainable due to the fact of shifting of assessee's company regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment order for assessment year (AY) 2010-11 u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, for AY 2010-11 is without jurisdiction; void ab initio, nullity and non est in law and deserves to be annulled. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, for AY 2010-11, the appellant having its registered office in Mumbai falls under the jurisdiction of DC/ACIT Circle 8(3), Mumbai and e-filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 electronically which was processed u/s 143(1) by DC/ACIT, Mumbai. The appellant has been regularly assessed for earlier years by the jurisdictional AO i.e. AC/DCIT Mumbai. These facts were clearly available in the Department records, online on income-tax website, online PAN record available with Department and were also specifically informed to the Ld. AO repeatedly, and hence the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld. AO completely lacks jurisdiction and perverse and is vitiated in law. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to apprecia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y materially affect the price of such transactions. That DCIT, New Delhi erred in failing to take cognizance of the differences in risk profile of the appellant (being a captive service provider to its AE) and the alleged comparable companies selected by him by not allowing the risk adjustment made by the appellant. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law DCIT, New Delhi erred in not allowing an adjustment on account of difference in working capital position of the appellant and the alleged comparable companies. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law that DCIT, New Delhi has erred in computing the margin of the alleged comparable companies and the margin of the appellant company and consequently the computation of amount added to income and transfer price adjustment in the ALP is wrong and erroneous. 12. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law that DCIT, New Delhi erred in rejecting the multiyear data of the alleged comparable companies. 13. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law that DCIT, New Delhi has erred in not providing the benefit of the variation or red....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 to 47 of paper book. Reliance was placed on order dated 19.02.2025 of ITAT, New Delhi in ITA No. 1849/Del/2022 tiled as Baljit Singh vs. ITO. 7. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee did not file objections regarding jurisdiction despite several adjournments before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee failed to give any assistance regarding TP issues. 8. Reliance was placed on order dated 01.06.2018 in writ petition Civil No. 11844/2016 titled as Abhishek Jain vs. ITO of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 9. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 26.10.2016 confirmed the assessment order dated 30.03.2013 of ld. AO/DCIT, Circle 18(1), New Delhi. 9.1 The assessment order dated 18.01.2011 for A.Y. 2009-10 and dated 26.03.2014 for A.Y. 2011-12 issued by Ld. AO at Mumbai are at page No. 55 to 57 and 58 to 60 of paper book respectively. 9.2 No order u/s 127 of the Act transferring jurisdiction of assessee from Mumbai to Delhi was passed for A.Y. 2010-11. 9.3 A co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1849/Del/2022 titled as Baljit Singh vs. ITO order dated 19.02.2025 in para No. 12 to 14 held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w; "29. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid claim of the ld. DR we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the same. On a careful perusal of Section 124 of the Act, it transpires that the same deals with the issue of "territorial jurisdiction" of an Assessing Officer. Ostensibly, sub- section (1) of Section 124 contemplates vesting with the A.O jurisdiction over a specified area by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Act. On the other hand sub-section (2) of Section 124 contemplates the manner in which any controversy as regards the territorial jurisdiction of an A.O is to be resolved. Apropos, sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, the same places an embargo upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O where he had initially not raised such objection within a period of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under subsection (1) of Section 142 or sub-section (2) of Section 143. In sum and substance, the obligation cast upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction, but in fact an objection to the assumption of inherent jurisdiction by him in absence of an order u/s. 120(4)(b) of the Act, therefore, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 would not assist the case of the revenue. 30. In fact, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bansilal B. Raisoni & Sons Vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 1, Nashik & Anr, WP No.13391 of 2018 had, inter alia observed that the time limit for raising objection to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer prescribed under sub section (3) of Section Jindal Power Limited Vs. Jt. CIT, Range-1, Bilaspur ITA Nos.201 & 202/RPR/2017 124 has a relation to the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction. It was further observed that the time limit prescribed would not apply to a case where the assessee contends that the action of the Assessing Officer is without authority of law and, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. Also, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-1, Nagpur Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 213 (Bom) had addressed the contention of the department that where the assessee had not objected to the jurisdiction w....