9 Reliable Finhold Ltd. v. ITO

369 ITR 419High Court2014#15718 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 116within four yearssection 151(1)beyond four yearssection 151(2)section 10bsection 149(1)(b)section 149(1)chief commissionersection 149section 151

Judgments citing 9 Reliable Finhold Ltd. v. ITO

Niraj, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Niraj Vs. Ito H.No.30, Satvara Debai Ward- 2 (3) (1) Bulandshahr 202392 Delhi Pan No.Apdpn7627J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Subhash Singhal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 292

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Niraj Vs. ITO H.No.30, Satvara Debai Ward- 2 (3) (1) Bulandshahr 202392 Delhi PAN No.APDPN7627J Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Subhash Singhal, CA Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax /NFAC, Delhi [herein after referred as “CIT(A)”] dated 01.04.202…

Kubix Realties LLP, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle -14 Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1260/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 292BSection 3

…e of CIT v. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs. ACIT (2012) 364 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT Vs. Aquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd. 446 ITR 545, Reliable Finhold Ltd. vs. Union of India (2014 369 ITR 419 (All), CIT Vs. H.M. Constructions (2014) 366 ITR 277 (Karn), Dr. Shashi Kant Garg Vs. CIT (2006) 285 ITR 158 (All) and East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT (1993) 204 ITR 435 (Cal.). 11. The sanction obtained from a wrong authority vitiates the notice u/s.148 of the Act. The issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act in the instant case is bad in law. 12.…

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.2478/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2004-05 Marble Art ACIT B-358, New Friends Colony, Circle 22(1) [vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAFFM2468R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2479/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2002-03 Marble Art ACIT B-358, New Friends Colony, Circle 22(1) [vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAFFM2468R (Appellant) (Respondent) & ITA.No.2480/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2003-04 Marble Art ACIT B-358, New Friends Colony, Circle 22(1) [vs. New Delhi…

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.2478/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2004-05 Marble Art ACIT B-358, New Friends Colony, Circle 22(1) [vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAFFM2468R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2479/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2002-03 Marble Art ACIT B-358, New Friends Colony, Circle 22(1) [vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAFFM2468R (Appellant) (Respondent) & ITA.No.2480/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2003-04 Marble Art ACIT B-358, New Friends Colony, Circle 22(1) [vs. New Delhi…

M/S. Marble Art, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.2478/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2004-05 Marble Art ACIT B-358, New Friends Colony, Circle 22(1) [vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAFFM2468R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2479/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2002-03 Marble Art ACIT B-358, New Friends Colony, Circle 22(1) [vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAFFM2468R (Appellant) (Respondent) & ITA.No.2480/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2003-04 Marble Art ACIT B-358, New Friends Colony, Circle 22(1) [vs. New Delhi…

M/S. Pik Studios P. Ltd (Formerly Known As Pik Pen Private Limited), Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 6681/MUM/2018[1999-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 1999-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

Section 154Section 32Section 43(1)

…n in the third round, revenue has not been able to produce the copy of sanction granted by the Joint Commissioner. Hence, invocation of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) is not in accordance with law. Sanction is mandatory i. Reliable Finhold Ltd. vs. UOI (2014) 369 ITR 419 (A11.)(HC)(423) No Sanction was obtained order was bad in law. ii. Dhadda Exports vs. ITO (2015) 377 ITR 347 (Raj.)(HC) (353) Failure to obtain sanction is not a curable defect u/s. 292B, hence notice is invalid. iii. Jaswant Sugar Mills vs. I..T.C. (1973) Tax LR 1336 (A11.)(HC) Brief Note - (C) unless the I.T.O. after giving the assesse an op…

9 Reliable Finhold Ltd. v. ITO (369 ITR 419) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax