21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India

2 SCC 181Supreme Court of India2007#243 most cited
318

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT · SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India · 2 SCC 181 · Section 143(3) · Section 144C · Section 153 · interpretation of law · assessment procedure · divergence of opinion · legal uncertainty

Also reported as

37 STC 425

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(4)Section 153(1)Section 153Section 144BSection 144CSection 153(2A)

Issues it is cited on

section 144cofsection 158absection 136section 261section 11(3)section 115bbe(b)section 153(4)impermissible avoidance arrangementsection 144c(4)section 193section 196section 43(3)

Judgments citing 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 116/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…e:  Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax VS M/s Serajuddin Co. Kolkata (2023) 454 ITR 0312 (Orissa), wherein Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the present context have referred to the judgments by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Rajesh Kumar vs DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) and (ii) Sahara India (Firm) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) and have observed as under: 15. A plain reading of Section 1530 itself makes it abundantly clear that the legislative intent was to be obtaining of "prior approval" by the AO when he is below the rank of a Joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessm…

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 115/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…e:  Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax VS M/s Serajuddin Co. Kolkata (2023) 454 ITR 0312 (Orissa), wherein Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the present context have referred to the judgments by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Rajesh Kumar vs DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) and (ii) Sahara India (Firm) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) and have observed as under: 15. A plain reading of Section 1530 itself makes it abundantly clear that the legislative intent was to be obtaining of "prior approval" by the AO when he is below the rank of a Joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessm…

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 114/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…e:  Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax VS M/s Serajuddin Co. Kolkata (2023) 454 ITR 0312 (Orissa), wherein Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the present context have referred to the judgments by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Rajesh Kumar vs DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) and (ii) Sahara India (Firm) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) and have observed as under: 15. A plain reading of Section 1530 itself makes it abundantly clear that the legislative intent was to be obtaining of "prior approval" by the AO when he is below the rank of a Joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessm…

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 113/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…e:  Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax VS M/s Serajuddin Co. Kolkata (2023) 454 ITR 0312 (Orissa), wherein Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the present context have referred to the judgments by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Rajesh Kumar vs DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) and (ii) Sahara India (Firm) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) and have observed as under: 15. A plain reading of Section 1530 itself makes it abundantly clear that the legislative intent was to be obtaining of "prior approval" by the AO when he is below the rank of a Joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessm…

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 112/RPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…e:  Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax VS M/s Serajuddin Co. Kolkata (2023) 454 ITR 0312 (Orissa), wherein Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the present context have referred to the judgments by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Rajesh Kumar vs DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) and (ii) Sahara India (Firm) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) and have observed as under: 15. A plain reading of Section 1530 itself makes it abundantly clear that the legislative intent was to be obtaining of "prior approval" by the AO when he is below the rank of a Joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessm…

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 111/RPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…e:  Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax VS M/s Serajuddin Co. Kolkata (2023) 454 ITR 0312 (Orissa), wherein Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the present context have referred to the judgments by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Rajesh Kumar vs DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) and (ii) Sahara India (Firm) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) and have observed as under: 15. A plain reading of Section 1530 itself makes it abundantly clear that the legislative intent was to be obtaining of "prior approval" by the AO when he is below the rank of a Joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessm…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney

ITA/787/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney

ITA/69/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Sh. Praveen Sawhney

ITA/92/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney

ITA/76/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney

ITA/796/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney

ITA/790/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney

ITA/781/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney

ITA/74/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Praveen Sawhney

ITA/89/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Sh. Praveen Sawhney

ITA/783/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Sh. Praveen Sawhney

ITA/799/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney

ITA/72/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney

ITA/706/2023HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi vs. Sh. Praveen Sawhney

ITA/94/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…he provision by us may be given prospective effect, otherwise the interest of the Revenue will be greatly prejudiced. 37. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar [(2007) 2 SCC 181: (2006) 287 ITR 91] was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14-12-2006 [Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008)…