Chhattisgarh HighCourt in Bharat Krishi Kendra v. Union

444 ITR 584High Court2022#15868 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 37Section 69ASection 69CSection 148Section 151Section 143(3)Section 148A

Issues it is cited on

section 282a(1)section 65asection 282asection 140apurposive interpretationreal income theoryfaceless assessment schemesection 140approval under section 151section 65bsection 65section 282

Judgments citing Chhattisgarh HighCourt in Bharat Krishi Kendra v. Union

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…w laiddown bya High Court. 19 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. In this regard, the department humbly submits that there exists a contrary decision on thisprecise issue, rendered by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh HighCourt in Bharat Krishi Kendra v. Union of lndia (2022) 444 ITR 584, wherein the Hon'ble Court specifically dealt with the question of an unsigned approval under Section 151 of the Act. In para 14 of the judgment, itwas unequivocally held thatanapproval bearing thename, designation, and office of the authority, would be deemed valid under Section 282A, even in the absence of a physical or digital signature. Given…

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…w laiddown bya High Court. 19 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. In this regard, the department humbly submits that there exists a contrary decision on thisprecise issue, rendered by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh HighCourt in Bharat Krishi Kendra v. Union of lndia (2022) 444 ITR 584, wherein the Hon'ble Court specifically dealt with the question of an unsigned approval under Section 151 of the Act. In para 14 of the judgment, itwas unequivocally held thatanapproval bearing thename, designation, and office of the authority, would be deemed valid under Section 282A, even in the absence of a physical or digital signature. Given…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…w laiddown bya High Court. 19 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. In this regard, the department humbly submits that there exists a contrary decision on thisprecise issue, rendered by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh HighCourt in Bharat Krishi Kendra v. Union of lndia (2022) 444 ITR 584, wherein the Hon'ble Court specifically dealt with the question of an unsigned approval under Section 151 of the Act. In para 14 of the judgment, itwas unequivocally held thatanapproval bearing thename, designation, and office of the authority, would be deemed valid under Section 282A, even in the absence of a physical or digital signature. Given…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…w laiddown bya High Court. 19 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. In this regard, the department humbly submits that there exists a contrary decision on thisprecise issue, rendered by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh HighCourt in Bharat Krishi Kendra v. Union of lndia (2022) 444 ITR 584, wherein the Hon'ble Court specifically dealt with the question of an unsigned approval under Section 151 of the Act. In para 14 of the judgment, itwas unequivocally held thatanapproval bearing thename, designation, and office of the authority, would be deemed valid under Section 282A, even in the absence of a physical or digital signature. Given…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…w laiddown bya High Court. 19 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. In this regard, the department humbly submits that there exists a contrary decision on thisprecise issue, rendered by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh HighCourt in Bharat Krishi Kendra v. Union of lndia (2022) 444 ITR 584, wherein the Hon'ble Court specifically dealt with the question of an unsigned approval under Section 151 of the Act. In para 14 of the judgment, itwas unequivocally held thatanapproval bearing thename, designation, and office of the authority, would be deemed valid under Section 282A, even in the absence of a physical or digital signature. Given…

Bvg India Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Sneha M. PadhiarFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari & Abdhesh Kumar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153D

…roceeded with. 9. In support of his above contention, he drew our attention to the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jugal Kishore Paliwal reported in 446 ITR 515 (Chhattisgarh) and in the case of Bharat Krishi Kendra reported in 444 ITR 584 (Chhattisgarh) and drew our attention at pages 108 to 133 of the paper book-II. The ld. AR argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in both the above said cases held that DIN is required to be affixed on approval granted and since approval issued u/s. 151 of the Act contained DIN, the same cannot be held to be invalid. Further, he submi…

Chhattisgarh HighCourt in Bharat Krishi Kendra v. Union (444 ITR 584) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax