Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

457 ITR 647High Court2023#1186 most cited

What is Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

The amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, governing the sanction for reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A, applies to cases initiated under the new reassessment regime. The specified authority for granting such sanction becomes the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

95

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Siemens Financial Services v Dy CIT · section 151 · section 148 · section 148A · amended section 151 · pre-amended section 151 · specified authority · sanction for reassessment · Principal Chief Commissioner · Principal Director General · more than three years

Also reported as

154 Taxmann.com 159

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 151Section 147Section 148ASection 149Section 144BSection 250Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 13asection 151(i)section 151(ii)within four yearsapproval under section 151section 282a(1)section 151(2)order under section 148a(d)section 151(1)specified authoritysanctioning authoritysection 65a

Judgments citing Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Amit Suresh Agrawal, Satara vs. ITO Ward-2, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2225/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 9 ITA No.2225/PUN/2025 [A] taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.),the sanction is invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent notice under section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Act should be quashed and set aside. 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passe…

Siddharth Raikumar Nahar, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-5, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 2062/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2062/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

…assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.),the sanction is invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent notice under section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Act should be quashed and set aside. 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passe…

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

…lhi High Court had referred to the earlier decisions including the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in J M Financial & Investments Consultancy Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [W.P. No. 1050 of 2020]; Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom) and Vidyadhar Shetty v. 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 w…

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

…lhi High Court had referred to the earlier decisions including the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in J M Financial & Investments Consultancy Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [W.P. No. 1050 of 2020]; Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom) and Vidyadhar Shetty v. 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 w…

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

…lhi High Court had referred to the earlier decisions including the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in J M Financial & Investments Consultancy Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [W.P. No. 1050 of 2020]; Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom) and Vidyadhar Shetty v. 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 w…

Motibhai Lallubhai Desai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5588/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Mona Solanki, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151

…as Pr.CIT-3,Mumbai which should have been Pr.CCIT instead as per the amended provisions of the Act. Thus, the notice u/s 148 is barred by time limitation.Reliance has been placed on the decision of hon'ble Bombay High Court in Siemens Financial Services P.Ltd 457 ITR 647(Bom). 4.1 The ld.DR did not controvert the arguments of the ld.AR. 5. We have carefully examined the rival contentions and have also perused the records as also the pre and post amended provisions of section 148 and 151 of the Act.It is pertinent to note that while the controversy with respect to the applicability of the changed regime of reasses…

Rajinder Prashad, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 5393/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5393/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Rajinder Prashad, Vs Income Tax Officer, Bd-4, 2Nd Floor, Pitampura, Ward-47(1), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpp2498A Assessee By: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca & Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Sinha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Piyush Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

…xtends the time limits for completion of specified tasks up to March 31, 2021, itself becomes irrelevant because of the nature of the challenge in these writ petitions. 15. In Siemens Financial Services [Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom); 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2822; (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom).] , the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court concluded, in substantially similar facts and circumstances, that the amended section 151 and not the preamended section 151 would apply. For reasons set out above, I concur with the conclusion in Siemens Financial Services [Siemens F…

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…ssment year 2017-2018, where under identical set of facts, the Tribunal by following certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the 18 ITA.No.680/Hyd./2025 case of Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd., vs., DCIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom.) held as under “7. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute between the parties that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessment has been reopened u/sec.147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 2…

Basudeo Soni, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 4894/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4894/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Basudeo Soni, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O B-50, Lgf, South Extension-Ii, Ward-35(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agyps4983N Assessee By: Sh. Saantanu Jain, Adv. & Ms. Jahanvi Khanna, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Saantanu Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

…xtends the time limits for completion of specified tasks up to March 31, 2021, itself becomes irrelevant because of the nature of the challenge in these writ petitions. 15. In Siemens Financial Services [Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom); 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2822; (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom).] , the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court concluded, in substantially similar facts and circumstances, that the amended section 151 and not the preamended section 151 would apply. For reasons set out above, I concur with the conclusion in Siemens Financial 12 Basudeo Soni Se…

Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, Bhagur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1767/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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 A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…on 151 of the Act has been inserted only with effect from 1st April2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 5. In the circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.), the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 22nd April 2022 under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.” 6. ITAT Pune in the case of Hareshkumar Dungarmal Jain vs. DCIT in ITA No.1933/PUN/2024, quashed the Notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 13.04.2022 for A.Y.2…

Satish Chopra (Individual), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3435/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Sourabh Rohtagi, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

…xtends the time limits for completion of specified tasks up to March 31, 2021, itself becomes irrelevant because of the nature of the challenge in these writ petitions. 15. In Siemens Financial Services [Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom); 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2822; (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom).] , the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court concluded, in substantially similar facts and circumstances, that the amended section 151 and not the preamended section 151 would apply. For reasons set out above, I concur with the conclusion in Siemens Financial Services [Siemens F…

Vishal Vijay Jaiswal, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1634/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

…assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.),the sanction is invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent notice under section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Act should be quashed and set aside. 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passe…

Salim, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Saharanpur

ITA 4512/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4512/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 4513/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Salim, Vs Income Tax Officer, Khairdee, Vill.-Maganpura, Post- Saharanpur, Badshaibagh Behat, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001 Uttar Pradesh-247121 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Gxmps2271C Assessee By: Sh. Anil Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 148Section 148ASection 29A

…lause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 is immaterial. Indeed, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, these writ petitions. 15. In Siemens Financial Services [Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom); 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2822; (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom).] , the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court concluded, in substantially similar facts and circumstances, that the amended section 151 and not the preamended section 151 would apply. For reasons set out above, I concur with the conclusion in Siemens Financial Services [Siemens F…

Atul Bhanudas Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 970/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.970/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Atul Bhanudas Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, Shetphal Haveli, Dhenu Nagar, S Ward-14(5), Pune. Bawada S.O, Shetphal Haveli, Pune – 413103. Maharashtra. Pan: Ectps5299N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Form No.36 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 14.02.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 20.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

…assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.),the sanction is invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent notice under section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Act should be quashed and set aside. 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passed…

Zuber Khan Iqbal Khal Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 757/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 Zuber Khan Iqbalkhan Pathan, V The Income Tax Officer, Karim Bidi Compound, Wadjai S Ward-1, Dhule. Road, Dhule – 424001. Maharashtra. Pan: Abrpi3068E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni –Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Both Dated 29.04.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 147 Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Respectively; Both Dated 19.05.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.),the sanction is invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent notice under section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Act should be quashed and set aside. 7 ITA Nos.756 & 757/PUN/2025 [A] 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in…

Zuber Khan Iqbal Khan Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 756/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 Zuber Khan Iqbalkhan Pathan, V The Income Tax Officer, Karim Bidi Compound, Wadjai S Ward-1, Dhule. Road, Dhule – 424001. Maharashtra. Pan: Abrpi3068E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni –Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Both Dated 29.04.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 147 Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Respectively; Both Dated 19.05.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.),the sanction is invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent notice under section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Act should be quashed and set aside. 7 ITA Nos.756 & 757/PUN/2025 [A] 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in…

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

…he end of 3 years from end of the assessment year is invalid as the sanctioning authority was PCCIT and not PCIT. It was submitted that both these decisions have also relied further on the decision in the case of Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 457 ITR 647 (2023) Bom. Regarding these decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court relied upon by the assessee, it was submitted that no argument regarding retrospective application of proviso to Section 151 was presented before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in all these cases which have been decided against the Revenue. It was further submitted that as SLP…

Amrit Pal Singh Chadha, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2794/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2794/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Amrit Pal Singh, Vs Acit, 4410, Dlf, Phase-Iv, Central Circle-19, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpc3215P Assessee By: Sh. Amar Jeet Singh, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1073779465(1) Dated 27.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Amar Jeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

…ts for completion of specified tasks up to March 31, 2021, itself becomes irrelevant because of the nature of the challenge in these writ petitions. 11 Amrit Pal Singh 15. In Siemens Financial Services [Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom); 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2822; (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom).] , the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court concluded, in substantially similar facts and circumstances, that the amended section 151 and not the preamended section 151 would apply. For reasons set out above, I concur with the conclusion in Siemens Financial Services [Siemens F…

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

…the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority undersection 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr.Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.),the sanctionis invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent noticeunder section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Actshould be quashed and set aside. 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reasonto just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passed un…

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

…the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority undersection 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr.Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.),the sanctionis invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent noticeunder section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Actshould be quashed and set aside. 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reasonto just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passed un…