What is 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO authority for?

Section 282A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, mandates that any notice or document issued by the tax authority must be signed. This requirement for a manual or digital signature is mandatory and cannot be treated as a mere formality.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 151, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 10(37).

451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO (448 ITR 1)

Q: How many judgments cite 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO?

36 judgments on BharatTax cite 451 ITR 27 (Bom) Prakash Kirshnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO (448 ITR 1), spanning 2022 to 2026.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2808/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO

Section 10Section 147Section 148

…he Act, have also been submitted. The contention of the Assessee is that the sanction accorded u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act is unsigned, and this issue is directly addressed by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Vikas Gupta v. Union of India [2022] 448 ITR 1 (Allahabad). Consequently, it was argued that the Assessment Order issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer, based on the unsigned sanction, is invalid and should be quashed. Further reference is made to the facts of the Assessment Year 2016- 17, where the Assessee deposited Rs. 1,12,18,290/- in their bank account, arising from cash deposits received fr…

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2807/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO

Section 10Section 147Section 148

…he Act, have also been submitted. The contention of the Assessee is that the sanction accorded u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act is unsigned, and this issue is directly addressed by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Vikas Gupta v. Union of India [2022] 448 ITR 1 (Allahabad). Consequently, it was argued that the Assessment Order issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer, based on the unsigned sanction, is invalid and should be quashed. Further reference is made to the facts of the Assessment Year 2016- 17, where the Assessee deposited Rs. 1,12,18,290/- in their bank account, arising from cash deposits received fr…

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2806/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO

Section 10Section 147Section 148

…he Act, have also been submitted. The contention of the Assessee is that the sanction accorded u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act is unsigned, and this issue is directly addressed by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Vikas Gupta v. Union of India [2022] 448 ITR 1 (Allahabad). Consequently, it was argued that the Assessment Order issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer, based on the unsigned sanction, is invalid and should be quashed. Further reference is made to the facts of the Assessment Year 2016- 17, where the Assessee deposited Rs. 1,12,18,290/- in their bank account, arising from cash deposits received fr…

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2805/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO

Section 10Section 147Section 148

…he Act, have also been submitted. The contention of the Assessee is that the sanction accorded u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act is unsigned, and this issue is directly addressed by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Vikas Gupta v. Union of India [2022] 448 ITR 1 (Allahabad). Consequently, it was argued that the Assessment Order issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer, based on the unsigned sanction, is invalid and should be quashed. Further reference is made to the facts of the Assessment Year 2016- 17, where the Assessee deposited Rs. 1,12,18,290/- in their bank account, arising from cash deposits received fr…