Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO

166 Taxmann.com 168High Court2024#2977 most cited

What is Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO authority for?

The faceless assessment regime under section 151A is a jurisdictional imperative. If jurisdiction is statutorily vested in the Faceless Assessing Officer, any notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is void ab initio.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Capital G LP v ACIT · Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v ITO · section 151A · faceless assessment · jurisdictional imperative · void ab initio · coram non judice · notice by jurisdictional AO

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 151ASection 69ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 131Section 132(4)Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

extinguishment of rightssection 134section 282a(1)faceless assessment schemesection 65asection 282asection 151asubstantive assessmentprotective assessmentsection 140aretracted statementpurposive interpretation

Judgments citing Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO

ANTHONETTE JOAQUIM ANTHONY,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6531/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 69

…151A of the Act and therefore is void ab initio. In support of his contention, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Abhin Anilkumar Shah v/s Income-tax Officer, International Taxation, reported in [2024] 468 ITR 350 (Bombay). ITA No.6531/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 3 5. From the perusal of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we find that the Petitioner challenged the notice issued under section 148A(b) as also the order passed under section 148A(d) leading to the issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act on the b…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD vs. BHARAT THAKKER KALPANA, NIZAMABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1456/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1456/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 The Income Tax Officer, Bharat Thakker Kalpana Ward-1, Nizamabad – 503 001. Vs. Nizamabad. Pan Afkpt4232Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

…taramana Reddy Patloola v. Dy. CIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 411/468 ITR 181 . where the issue was in respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of Abhin Anilkumar Shah v. ITO,International Taxation [2024] 166 taxmann.com 679/301 Taxman 156/468 ITR 350 . which is again on international taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Govind Singh v. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 113/300 7 ITA.No.1456/Hyd./2025 Taxman 216 . Gujarat High Court in the case of Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Radadiya v. ITO 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 4012, Jharkand High Court in the case of Shyam Sundar Saw…

PRAKASH REDDY VATTI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1806/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Vatti Prakash Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 018. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Telangana. Pin – 500 017. Pan Aaspv8120C Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca A Vamseedhar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA A VamseedharFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 144B(7)(vii)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…taramana Reddy Patloola v. Dy. CIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 411/468 ITR 181 . where the issue was in respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of Abhin Anilkumar Shah v. ITO,International Taxation [2024] 166 taxmann.com 679/301 Taxman 156/468 ITR 350 . which is again on international taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Govind Singh v. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 113/300 Taxman 216 . Gujarat High Court in the case of Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Radadiya v. ITO 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 4012, Jharkand High Court in the case of Shyam Sundar Saw v. Union of India 2025 SC…

MR. SACHIV SAHNI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 6070/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

…aid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT has since been consistently followed by the same Court in Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)), and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)], thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but a jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutorily vested in the Faceless Assessing Officer, any notice issued by the Jur…

MR. SACHIV SAHNI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 6069/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

…aid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT has since been consistently followed by the same Court in Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)), and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)], thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but a jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutorily vested in the Faceless Assessing Officer, any notice issued by the Jur…

MR. SACHIV SAHNI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 6068/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

…aid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT has since been consistently followed by the same Court in Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)), and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)], thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but a jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutorily vested in the Faceless Assessing Officer, any notice issued by the Jur…

VEDA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3221/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

…ombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has been consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)). The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No. 18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position. Thus, we have no 12 Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited0 hesitation in holding that the reassessment orders impugned before us are void ab initio, bo…

VEDA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3219/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

…ombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has been consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)). The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No. 18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position. Thus, we have no 12 Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited0 hesitation in holding that the reassessment orders impugned before us are void ab initio, bo…

VEDA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3218/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

…udice and the proceeding is void at inception. The exposition laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT has since been consistently followed by the same Court in Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)), and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)], thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but a jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutorily vested…

VEDA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3217/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

…ombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has been consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)). The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No. 18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position. Thus, we have no 12 Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited0 hesitation in holding that the reassessment orders impugned before us are void ab initio, bo…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EI RESORTS & CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

ITA 3926/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…udice and the proceeding is void at inception. The exposition laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT has since been consistently followed by the same Court in Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)], thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but a jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutorily vested…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. E I RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

ITA 3886/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…udice and the proceeding is void at inception. The exposition laid down by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT has since been consistently followed by the same Court in Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)], thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but a jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutorily vested…

TARUN NANDKUMAR SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3239/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…is conclusion is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble\nBombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT\n(supra), which has been consistently followed in Capital G LP\nv. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil\nKumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and\nGanesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com\n168 (Bom)]. The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C)\nNo. 18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal\nposition. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the\nreassessment orders impugned before us are…

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3236/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…gh Court\nin Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has\n\n34\nITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others\nGovind Corporation & Others\n\nbeen consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ\nPetition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v.\nΙΤΟ [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti\nJagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)]. The\ndismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No.\n18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position.\nThus, we have no hesitation in holding that the reassessment\norders impugned before us are…

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3235/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…hich has\n34\nITA No.3230/Mum/2025 & Others\nGovind Corporation & Others\nbeen consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)]. The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No. 18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the reassessment orders impugned before us are void ab initio, both for want of jurisdiction and for breach of manda…

EI BENEFICARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

3230/Mum/2025 Govind

ITA 3234/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…ombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has been consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)]. The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No. 18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the reassessment orders impugned before us are void ab initio, both for want of jurisdiction and for breach of manda…

GOVIND CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3231/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…gh Court\nin Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has\n\n30\nITA No.3230/Mum/2025& Others\nGovind Corporation & Others\n\nbeen consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ\nPetition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v.\nΙΤΟ [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti\nJagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)]. The\ndismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No.\n18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position.\nThus, we have no hesitation in holding that the reassessment\norders impugned before us are…

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3230/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…e is bad in law.\n\nThe above decision of Hexaware was followed by the coordinate bench of Bombay High Court in the following cases:\ni)Capital G LP V. ACIT (writ Petition (L) No. 15289 of 2024) (Bombay HC)\nii) Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO reported in [2024] 468 ITR 350 (Bombay HC)\niii) Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap vs ACIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 168 (Bombay)\n\nb. The Supreme Court in the case of Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT ([SLP (C) No. 18753/2025] (SC) has dismissed the SLP filed against the decision of Telangana High Court (Writ Petition No. 23573 of 2024) regarding the validity of notice issued under section 148 by the…

VEDA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3220/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134Section 69A

…s conclusion\nis fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court\nin Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has\nbeen consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ\nPetition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v.\nΙΤΟ [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti\nJagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)]. The\ndismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C) No.\n18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position.\nThus, we have no hesitation in holding that the reassessment\norders impugned before us are…

TARUN NANDKUMAR SEKSARIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3216/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…conclusion is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble\n\nBombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT\n(supra), which has been consistently followed in Capital G LP\nv. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil\nKumar Shah v. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and\nGanesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT [(2024) 166 Taxmann.com\n168 (Bom)]. The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT [SLP (C)\nNo. 18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal\nposition. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the\nreassessment orders impugned before us are…

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO (166 Taxmann.com 168) — Cited in 40 Judgments | BharatTax