What is ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. authority for?

Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for assessment orders in search cases. While elaborate reasons for approval are not required, the approving authority must provide some indication that it has examined the draft orders and found them to meet the requirements of law.

How many judgments cite ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.?

580 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. (454 ITR 312), spanning 2023 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153D, Section 153A, Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 153C, Section 115BBE.

ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. (454 ITR 312)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur vs. M/S. N. R. Tmt(India) Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh

In the result, while for the appeal/preliminary objection filed by the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 9/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Nr Tmt (India) Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.106, Goverdhan Tower, Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh Pan: Aaecp8302R

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: S/shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153D

…t in case approval was granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind by the Addl./Jt. CIT then the same vitiated the assessment order had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of ACIT Vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312(Orissa). The Ld. AR further submitted that a mechanical approval without application of mind by the Addl./Jt. CIT would be invalid in the eyes of law. The Ld. AR in support of his contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT-(Central)-2 Vs. Anuj Bansal (2024) 165 taxmann.com 2 (Del.). The Ld. AR…

M/S Nrtmt(India) Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur

In the result, while for the appeal/preliminary objection filed by the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Nr Tmt (India) Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.106, Goverdhan Tower, Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh Pan: Aaecp8302R

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: S/shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153D

…t in case approval was granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind by the Addl./Jt. CIT then the same vitiated the assessment order had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of ACIT Vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312(Orissa). The Ld. AR further submitted that a mechanical approval without application of mind by the Addl./Jt. CIT would be invalid in the eyes of law. The Ld. AR in support of his contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT-(Central)-2 Vs. Anuj Bansal (2024) 165 taxmann.com 2 (Del.). The Ld. AR…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…eads to the inescapable conclusion that there was, in reality, no perusal of assessment record and independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority (les) for according approval. The Orissa High Court in the case of ACTT vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Ori), while disapproving of sanction granted without looking into the records, observed as under: DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. “16. That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of section 142 (2-4) which empowers on AO to direct a specia…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…eads to the inescapable conclusion that there was, in reality, no perusal of assessment record and independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority (les) for according approval. The Orissa High Court in the case of ACTT vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Ori), while disapproving of sanction granted without looking into the records, observed as under: DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. “16. That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of section 142 (2-4) which empowers on AO to direct a specia…

Nirvana Technobuilds Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-15(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1530/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 1530/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ita No. 1531/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ita No. 1532/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Rajiv Mittal, Central Circle-25, E-14, Industrial Area, New Delhi Sonepat, Haryana Pan No. Aaqpm1016Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 292CSection 69A

…Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal reported in 165 taxmann.com 2; b) Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of PCIT vs Sapna Gupta reported in 147 taxmann.com 288; c) Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. reported in 454 ITR 312; d) Hon'ble Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. reported in. 163 taxmann.com 118; e) Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT in ITA No. 458/Del/2022; d) Copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain vs ACIT in ITA Nos. 1373 to 1377/Del/2020; e) Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in th…