Ambika Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT

452 ITR 285High Court2023#12858 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 151Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 143(1)Section 149Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 151(ii)section 151(i)within four yearsspecified authoritysection 3(1)section 151(1)section 151(2)section 149(1)(b)section 149(1)section 148achief commissionersection 148a(d)

Judgments citing Ambika Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT

RAJENDRAKUMAR SHRISHRIMAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3282/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendrakumar Shrishrimal, V The Income Tax Officer, 685/3, Anant Vashat, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Bjsps9226G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 03.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…57 ITR 647 / 2023 SCC On Line Bom 2822 ; the Madras High Court in Ramachandran Shivan v. ITO [W.P. No.8570 Of 2023, dated 4-3-2024]and other connected matters, decided on 04.03.2024 and the Orissa High Court in Ambika Iron and Steel (P.)Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 452 ITR 285 (Ori.)/2022 SCC On Line Ori 4162 and had noted that the question as to which is the specified authority whose approval is mandatory, would depend on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year or thereafter. 18. In view of the above, the impugned notice is…

MUKUNDA PANDIT CHAUGULE,PANDHURLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3194/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3194/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukunda Pandit Chaugule, V The Income Tax Officer, 471A, Shimpi Lane, Pandurli S Nashik. B.O., Pandhurli, Nashik – 422502 Pan: Atepc5427G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 26.09.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 20.04.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 250Section 69A

…57 ITR 647 / 2023 SCC On Line Bom 2822 ; the Madras High Court in Ramachandran Shivan v. ITO [W.P. No.8570 Of 2023, dated 4-3-2024]and other connected matters, decided on 04.03.2024 and the Orissa High Court in Ambika Iron and Steel (P.)Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 452 ITR 285 (Ori.)/2022 SCC On Line Ori 4162 and had noted that the question as to which is the specified authority whose approval is mandatory, would depend on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year or thereafter. 18. In view of the above, the impugned notice is…

BABU LAL PATWARI ,UTTARAKHAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(), UTTARAKHAND

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

ITA 60/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Chaterjee, CIT DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…7 (Bom) and Vidyadhar Shetty v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai &Ors. [W.P. No. 10849 of 2024]; the Madras High Court in Ramachandran Shivan v. ITO [W.P. No.8570 of 2023] and the Orissa High Court in Ambika Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 452 ITR 285 (Ori.) and had noted that the question as to which is the specified authority whose approval is mandatory, would depend on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year or thereafter. We further find force from the order rendered by Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), NEW DELHI vs. KOLAHAI INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3554/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…(Bom) and Vidyadhar Shetty v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. [W.P. No. 10849 of 2024]; the Madras High Court in Ramachandran Shivan v. ITO [W.P. No.8570 of 2023] and the Orissa High Court in Ambika Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 452 ITR 285 (Ori.) and had noted that the question as to which is the specified authority whose approval is mandatory, would depend on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year or thereafter. We further find force from the order rendered by Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), DELHI vs. KOLAHAI INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3553/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…(Bom) and Vidyadhar Shetty v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. [W.P. No. 10849 of 2024]; the Madras High Court in Ramachandran Shivan v. ITO [W.P. No.8570 of 2023] and the Orissa High Court in Ambika Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 452 ITR 285 (Ori.) and had noted that the question as to which is the specified authority whose approval is mandatory, would depend on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year or thereafter. We further find force from the order rendered by Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in the…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI vs. INTERLINK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH DELHI

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4671/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gurdev Singh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

…Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. [W.P. No. 10849 of 2024]; the Madras CO Nos.126, 104 & 105/Del/2025 High Court in Ramachandran Shivan v. ITO [W.P. No.8570 of 2023] and the Orissa High Court in Ambika Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 452 ITR 285 (Ori.) and had noted that the question as to which is the specified authority whose approval is mandatory, would depend on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year or thereafter. We further find force from the order rendered by Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in the…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. INTERLINK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH DELHI

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4670/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gurdev Singh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

…Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. [W.P. No. 10849 of 2024]; the Madras CO Nos.126, 104 & 105/Del/2025 High Court in Ramachandran Shivan v. ITO [W.P. No.8570 of 2023] and the Orissa High Court in Ambika Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 452 ITR 285 (Ori.) and had noted that the question as to which is the specified authority whose approval is mandatory, would depend on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year or thereafter. We further find force from the order rendered by Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in the…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI vs. INTERLINK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH DELHI

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4669/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gurdev Singh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

…Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. [W.P. No. 10849 of 2024]; the Madras CO Nos.126, 104 & 105/Del/2025 High Court in Ramachandran Shivan v. ITO [W.P. No.8570 of 2023] and the Orissa High Court in Ambika Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2023] 452 ITR 285 (Ori.) and had noted that the question as to which is the specified authority whose approval is mandatory, would depend on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year or thereafter. We further find force from the order rendered by Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in the…

Ambika Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (452 ITR 285) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax