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

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

S.K. Bhatia & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1800/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 S. K. Bhatia & Sons Huf, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-197, Whs Timber Market, Kirti Ward-34(1), Nagar, Moti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi-110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavhs7168G Assessee By: Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca & Sh. Aditya Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073655510(1) Dated 24.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ayush Garg, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

…ompletion of specified tasks up to March 31, 2021, itself becomes irrelevant because of the nature of the challenge in these writ petitions. 11 S. K. Bhatia & Sons HUF 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…

Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1) Delhi, Delhi vs. Aruna Gupta, Delhi

ITA 687/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 687/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs Aruna Gupta, Ward-10(1), B-1/45, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110029 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakpg2642L Co No. 49/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Aruna Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-1/45, Safdarjung Enclave, Ward-10(1), New Delhi-110029 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakpg2642L Assessee By: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2025 Order This Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No. 49/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071333531(1) Dated 18.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 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…

Iqbal Ali Jaweed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 448/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…d 11.03.2025 for the assessment 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 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 date…

Iqbal Ali Jaweed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 447/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…d 11.03.2025 for the assessment 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 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 date…

Saif Ali Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)- Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeded on primary submission of ld

ITA 2131/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Saif Ali Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi/ Acit, Flat No. 1001/02, Fortune Heights, 29Th Vs Circle-16(1), Mumbai Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. [Pan No. Aahpk0520E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.K. Lalkaka, Ca Revenue By Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 28.03.2025 Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 155Section 251Section 254(1)

…ust 2022 is beyond the period of limitation and is nullity in the eyes of law and is non est. f) Reliance is placed on the ITAT Mumbai decision of ACIT vs Munish Financials delivered on 02.12.2024 and Siemens Financial Services (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT &Ors. [(2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom)]. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (Appeals) before enhancing the assessment failed to give a show cause notice as required under sub-section (2) of section 251 of the Income-tax Act and hence the Appellant was denied an opportunity of being heard.” 2. Rival submissions of Learned Authorised Representative (…

M/S. Soft Zone, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle5, Pune, Puine

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 724/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.724/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Soft Zone, V The Dcit, 84 Laxmi Road, Opp.Ganesh S. Circle-5, Pune. Peth Police Station, Ganesh Peth, Pune – 411003. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Vindo Pawar – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 16.01.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Re-Opening Of The Assessment In This Case Is Invalid & Bad In Law. The Notice U/S 148 & Consequentially, The Impugned Re-

Section 115BSection 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. ITA No.724/PUN/2025 [A] 4. As held in Siemens…

Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Homewell Realty LLP, Andheri, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1684/MUM/2025 (Α.Υ. 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward v/s. Homewell Realty LLP, 5th 24(2)(1), Room No. 608, Floor, Agarwal Golden 6th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Plot No. 13/A, Fun Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Republic Road, Off. New L Mumbai 400012, Andheri(W) Mumbai - 400053, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAJFH0755L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Satish Mody, AR Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)…

Hetal Pagare, ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Mulund West

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed in above terms

ITA 120/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit 16(2), Vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 1901, Moksh Mahal Building, Mumbai-400 020 Maharashtra-400 080 Pan: Aabpr2061D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT 16(2), Vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Room no. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 1901, Moksh Mahal Building, Mumbai-400 020 Maharashtra-400 080 PAN: AABPR2061D (Appellant) (Respondent) Department Represented by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. DR Assessee Represented by : Shri Bhadresh Doshi, Ld. AR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of…

Yezdi Naushir Bharucha, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 315/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.315/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Yezdi Naushir Bharucha, V The Income Tax Officer, Bharucha House, New Laxmi S. Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. Talkies Road, Amalner – 425401. Maharashtra. Pan: Abepb6770B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak - Ar Revenue By Shri Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 11.12.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Reopening U/S 148 Was Valid In Law Without Appreciating That The Notice U/S 148 Was Issued Was Invalid In Law & Accordingly, The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 Should Have Been Declared Null & Void.

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 passed…

Raju Shreedhar Ghodake, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 707/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 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. ITA No.707/PUN/2025 [A] 4. As held in Siemens…

Dinesh Dilip Mehta, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2048/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2048/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Dilip Mehta, V The Income Tax Officer, 936 3, Irvin Road, New Nana S Ward-7(1), Pune. Peth, Opp.M Phule High School, Pune – 411002. Pan: Abbpm0414G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor - Dr Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 01.08.2024For Assessment Year2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.69,10,300/- On Account Of Alleged Commission Income U/S 56 Of The Act.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 56

…g 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] ITA No.2048/PUN/2024 [A] 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…

Devalbai Karsan Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Devalbai Karsan Parmar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(1)(1), H9, B-401, Herumb Chs, 3Rd Floor, New Mhada Colony, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Kamgar Nagar, Lalbaugh, Near Tilak Nagar Mumbai-400012. Railway Station, Chembur, Mumbai-400024. Pan: Aispp0021A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shashank Mehta For Revenue : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…/07/2022, the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act. 16. 16. We find that while considering the similar issue and similar submissions the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Lid. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bombay), held that TOLA would not affect the scope of section 151 and sanction of Specified Authority was to be obtained in accordance with the law existing when the sanction was obtained. It was further held that where the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice beyond the period of three years, approval was required to be taken as per prov…

Kai Ganpatrao Sakharam Pawar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Maryadit, Karad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 356/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 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 ITA No.356/PUN/2025 [A] 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 (…

Mark Foods, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4102/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

…rom Principal chief commissioner of income tax as per section 151(ii) since a period of 3 years has elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year thereby violating the law laid down in the case of Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bombay HC). 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of issuance of notice under section 148 in violation of provisions contained in section 151A of the Act and in violation of law laid down in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limi…

ACIT Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Jmp Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3792/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Vs. Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C. O. No. 182/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3792/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri. Omkandalkar Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short)

For Respondent: Shri. Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ACIT, Circle-4(3)(1) JMP Securities Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 801/806, 8th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Vs. Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. PAN/GIR No. AAACJ8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C. O. No. 182/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 3792/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) JMP Securities Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Circle-4(3)(1) 801/806, 8th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Vs. Churchgate, M…

Raziulla Syed, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 986/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195

…Bench in the case of Manish Jagdish Joshi vs. CIT ITA.No.1617/Mum./2024 and the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay 24 ITA.No.986/Hyd./2024 High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom.) held as under : “We find that while considering the similar issue and similar submissions the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v/s DCIT, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom.) held that TOLA would not affect the scope of section 151 and sanction of Specified Authority was to be obtained in accordance with the l…

Nishchint Bagga, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Neelam Jain, 374, Veer Apartment, Ward-36(1), Sector-103, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajppj0908E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 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…