SWIFT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by the identical wording of proposals and approvals across years and entities. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals concerned assessment orders passed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The core issue was the validity of the approval granted under Section 153D for these orders.
What were the issues?
Whether the approval granted under Section 153D for passing assessment orders under Section 153C was valid, or if it was granted mechanically without due application of mind, thereby vitiating the assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar597 citing163 Taxmann.com 9 · 2024 · HC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. Sapna Gupta591 citing147 Taxmann.com 288 · 2023 · HC
- ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.580 citing454 ITR 312 · 2023 · HC · Read judgment
- ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.500 citing163 Taxmann.com 118 · 2024 · SC
- ACIT v. Sirajuddin& Co.288 citing150 Taxmann.com 146 · 2023 · HC
- Shreelekha Damani v. DCIT236 citing173 TTJ 332 · 2015 · ITAT
- PCIT v. Sreelekha Damani208 citing307 CTR 218 · 2019 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:
These six appeals are filed by the assessee against the respective orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-25, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2020-21 respectively.
Since the issues involved in these appeals are inter-connected, hence, the appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the facts of assessment year 2015-16,
being the lead case.
2
Assessee has raised as many as 17 grounds, but Ld. AR of the Assessee only argued the Ground 4
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 153D
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Babita Panda, Bhubaneswar vs DCIT, Central Circle 1, BhubaneswarITA 603/CTK/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Sarat Chandra Panda, Bhubaneswar vs DCIT, Central Circle 1, BhubaneswarITA 602/CTK/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Babita Panda, Bhubaneswar vs DCIT, Central Circle 1, BhubaneswarITSSA 66/CTK/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Babita Panda, Bhubaneswar vs DCIT, Central Circle 1, BhubaneswarITSSA 65/CTK/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026