ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted without application of mind, as evidenced by procedural errors and the approval of orders for non-existent entities. Therefore, the assessment orders are invalid.

The Tribunal noted that two assessment orders were passed for the same assessment year under different PANs. The CIT(Appeals) had not considered the cash deposits and credit entries in the bank account. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh consideration on merit, providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the source of the deposits.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must not be a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment order.

The Commissioner dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing incorrect facts regarding the gift of shares, and failed to address other grounds of appeal. The tribunal found that the Commissioner did not properly apply his mind to the facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the approving authority was without application of mind, as evidenced by several errors in the assessment orders and the approval process. The Tribunal noted that the approval was treated as a mere formality and that the approving authority was not aware of all the issues involved.

The Tribunal held that an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is a competent authority to grant approval under Section 153D, as the definition of 'Joint Commissioner' in Section 2(28C) is inclusive and covers Additional Commissioners. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically without application of mind, rendering the assessment orders bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is a competent authority to grant approval under section 153D, as the definition of 'Joint Commissioner' includes 'Additional Commissioner'. However, the Tribunal also noted that the approvals were granted mechanically without proper application of mind, indicating errors in the assessment process.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted without proper application of mind by the approving authority. It found that the approval process was a mere formality, evidenced by various errors and procedural lapses.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act for assessment orders in search cases is not a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the case.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the approving authority. It noted several errors and inconsistencies in the approval process, indicating a procedural lapse.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal found several procedural irregularities in the assessment orders, including issues with draft assessment order approvals, incorrect section usage, and failure to consider assessee submissions. These issues led to the quashing of the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted by an Additional Commissioner, which is legally permissible as per the inclusive definition of 'Joint Commissioner' in Section 2(28C) of the Act. However, the Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention regarding the mechanical approval without application of mind, which was not adequately addressed by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the approving authority. This was evidenced by several errors in the assessment orders and the approval process.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted without proper application of mind by the approving authority. The Tribunal noted several errors in the assessment orders and the approval process, including approvals granted for non-existent entities and draft orders being approved before finalization.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must not be a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment order before granting approval.

The Tribunal held that the approval for assessment orders under section 153D was granted by an Additional Commissioner, which is legally equivalent to a Joint Commissioner as per the definition in the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal noted significant procedural irregularities and non-application of mind by the approving authority, as evidenced by draft orders containing approval dates and numbers before their actual approval, and approvals granted for non-existent entities.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must be granted with due application of mind and cannot be a mechanical exercise. The assessment orders passed without such proper approval are liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders under Section 153D was granted by the Additional Commissioner, who is included within the definition of Joint Commissioner as per Section 2(28C) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the approval was valid.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases is not a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the case.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority in all these appeals was without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must not be a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must not be a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the approving authority was not a mere formality and required application of mind. The assessee's arguments regarding the approving authority's lack of awareness and the existence of errors in the assessment orders were considered.

The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is a competent authority to grant approval under Section 153D, as the definition of 'Joint Commissioner' includes 'Additional Commissioner'. However, the Tribunal also noted that the approval process appeared to be mechanical and lacked application of mind in some instances.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders passed after search/requisition is not a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment proposal.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the approving authority for the assessment orders was done without proper application of mind. This was evidenced by errors in the assessment orders, the approving authority not addressing the assessee's points, and the approval process appearing to be a mere formality.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment orders in search cases, must be a non-mechanical exercise by the approving authority, demonstrating application of mind. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is a competent authority to grant approval under section 153D, as the definition of 'Joint Commissioner' is inclusive and includes an Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal also noted that the approval process was not mechanically done without application of mind.