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

M/S. Malhotra Cables Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 4712/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153BSection 90

…n of the 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) 14 SCC…

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 962/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…c interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT ((2007) 2 SCC 181], in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei [AIR 1967 SC 1269]. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid d…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 119/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 117/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 116/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 115/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 114/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

ITA 113/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Bilaspur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 112/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Bilaspur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 111/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication& Infrastructure P. Ltd, Bilaspur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication& Infrastructure P. Ltd, Bilaspur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 109/NAG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication& Infrastructure P. Ltd, Bilaspur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 108/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…or officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under: “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5631/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…n. A reference can be made in the context of Section 142(2A) of the Act which empowers the AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 2 SCC 181, observed as under:- “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation of…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5630/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…n. A reference can be made in the context of Section 142(2A) of the Act which empowers the AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory when the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 2 SCC 181, observed as under:- “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation of…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5629/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…n. A reference can be made in the context of Section 142(2A) of the Act which empowers the AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory when the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 2 SCC 181, observed as under:- “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation of…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5628/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…n. A reference can be made in the context of Section 142(2A) of the Act which empowers the AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 2 SCC 181, observed as under:- “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation of…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5627/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…n. A reference can be made in the context of Section 142(2A) of the Act which empowers the AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 2 SCC 181, observed as under:- “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation of…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5626/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…n. A reference can be made in the context of Section 142(2A) of the Act which empowers the AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 2 SCC 181, observed as under:- “58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation of…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5625/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…n. A reference can be made in the context of Section 142(2A) of the Act which empowers the AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 2 SCC 181, observed as under:- "58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same should be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation given by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving authority was required to go through it. He could have arrived at a different opinion. He in a situation of…