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

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

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

ITA 5624/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

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…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8537/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…Ganesh, Senior Advocate. They drew attention of the Court to the relevant clauses of the CBDT Circular dated 12th March 2008 and the decisions in Sahara India (Firm,) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 14 SCC 151; Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT, (2007) 2 SCC 181 and the decisions of the Delhi High Court in ESS Advertising (Mauritius) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2021) SCC OnLine Del 3613; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. M/s. N.C. Cables Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6533; Yum ! Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax, (2017) 397 ITR 665; Syfonia Tradelinks Private Lim…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8536/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…Ganesh, Senior Advocate. They drew attention of the Court to the relevant clauses of the CBDT Circular dated 12th March 2008 and the decisions in Sahara India (Firm,) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 14 SCC 151; Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT, (2007) 2 SCC 181 and the decisions of the Delhi High Court in ESS Advertising (Mauritius) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2021) SCC OnLine Del 3613; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. M/s. N.C. Cables Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6533; Yum ! Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax, (2017) 397 ITR 665; Syfonia Tradelinks Private Lim…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8535/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…Ganesh, Senior Advocate. They drew attention of the Court to the relevant clauses of the CBDT Circular dated 12th March 2008 and the decisions in Sahara India (Firm,) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 14 SCC 151; Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT, (2007) 2 SCC 181 and the decisions of the Delhi High Court in ESS Advertising (Mauritius) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2021) SCC OnLine Del 3613; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. M/s. N.C. Cables Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6533; Yum ! Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax, (2017) 397 ITR 665; Syfonia Tradelinks Private Lim…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8534/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…Ganesh, Senior Advocate. They drew attention of the Court to the relevant clauses of the CBDT Circular dated 12th March 2008 and the decisions in Sahara India (Firm,) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 14 SCC 151; Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT, (2007) 2 SCC 181 and the decisions of the Delhi High Court in ESS Advertising (Mauritius) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2021) SCC OnLine Del 3613; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. M/s. N.C. Cables Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6533; Yum ! Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax, (2017) 397 ITR 665; Syfonia Tradelinks Private Lim…

Akn Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

ITA 8533/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

…Ganesh, Senior Advocate. They drew attention of the Court to the relevant clauses of the CBDT Circular dated 12th March 2008 and the decisions in Sahara India (Firm,) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 14 SCC 151; Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT, (2007) 2 SCC 181 and the decisions of the Delhi High Court in ESS Advertising (Mauritius) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2021) SCC OnLine Del 3613; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. M/s. N.C. Cables Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6533; Yum ! Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax, (2017) 397 ITR 665; Syfonia Tradelinks Private Lim…

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1792/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…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 -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1791/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…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 -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…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 -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1789/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…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 -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…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 -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…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 -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…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…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 vs. Virtual Software and Training Pvt. Ltd

ITA/392/2023HC Delhi22 Nov 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…tion 271(l)(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 [2006] 287 ITR 91 (SC); (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, the principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is…

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai vs. Helios Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1740/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…below the rank of a joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessment order or reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. The Honourable High Court further held that where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors 032. Thereafter in paragraph num…

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai vs. Helios Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1739/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…below the rank of a joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessment order or reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. The Honourable High Court further held that where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors 032. Thereafter in paragraph num…

ACIT (CC)-8(2), Mumbai vs. Helios Exports Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1735/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…below the rank of a joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessment order or reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. The Honourable High Court further held that where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors 032. Thereafter in paragraph num…

ACIT (CC)-8(2), Mumbai vs. Helios Exports Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1734/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…below the rank of a joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessment order or reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. The Honourable High Court further held that where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors 032. Thereafter in paragraph num…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Citron Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1572/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…below the rank of a joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessment order or reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. The Honourable High Court further held that where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors 032. Thereafter in paragraph num…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Citron Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1571/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…below the rank of a joint Commissioner, before he passes an assessment order or reassessment order under section 153A (1) (b) or 153B (2) (b) of the act. After considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Kumar versus DCIT (2007) 2 SCC 181 the honourable High Court held that it is not correct on the part of the revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. The Honourable High Court further held that where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. SVP southwest Industries Ltd; A.Y. 16-17 & Ors 032. Thereafter in paragraph num…