How many judgments cite Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT?

95 judgments on BharatTax cite Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (457 ITR 647), spanning 2024 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 151, Section 147, Section 148A, Section 149, Section 144B.

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.

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 148 Section 151 Section 147 Section 148A Section 149 Section 144B Section 250 Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 13a section 151(i)section 151(ii)within four years approval under section 151 section 282a(1)section 151(2)order under section 148a(d)section 151(1)specified authority sanctioning authority section 65a

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

M/S. Arthbharti Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1848/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1848/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Arthbharti Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1, Latur. Adarsh Colony, Old Ausa Road, Latur – 413512. Pan: Aabaa2265P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025 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(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2018-19Dated 24.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Without Prejudice To Other Grounds & On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings So Completed Are Invalid Since The Addition Is Made On An Issue Different Than That For Which Case Was Re-Opened. Since, The Issue Of Re-Opening Did Not Survive The Assessment Proceedings Becomes Void-Ab-Initio. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated & Completed Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 80P

…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. 13 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 pas…

Davos International Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta / Shri DhavalFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1190/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Davos International Fund, ACIT (T)-2(1)(2), Room No. 1612, 16th Floor, C/o Harel Mallac Global Services Ltd., Harel Mallac Building, 18 Edith Air India Building, Nariman Point, Cavell Street, Port Louis, Mauritius / Mumbai-400021. Vs. C/s V.B. Desai Financial Services Ltd., Cama Building, 1st Floor, 24/26 Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. PAN : AADCD7742G Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta / Shri Dhaval Jariwala, AR Revenue /…

ITO-10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pushpak Realties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4816/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 3

…l the years, the ld. CIT (A) has quashed the notice after holding as under:- A.Y.2013-14 7.1 The ld. CIT(A) while quashing the notice has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in 457 ITR 647 and had quashed the notice. A.Y.2014-15 7.2. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Industries vs. ACIT in Writ Petition 450 of 2023 holding that notice u/s.148 for A.Y. 2014- 15 could not have been issued on or after 01/04/2021 and the reopening notice issued on 31/07/2022 for A.Y.2014-15 was b…

ITO 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pushpak Realties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4814/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 3

ITO 10(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Pushpak Realities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4812/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 3

DCIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunil Harishchandra Keni, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4374/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 3Section 56(2)(vii)

…llant is the petitioner. 4.4 As per the contents of the said order, the Hon'ble Court in the appellant's own case, following the decision passed by the same court in the case of Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. DCIT and others reported in (2023) 457 ITR 647 (BOM) had held that the proceedings are invalid, in view of the invalid sanction and hence has to be quashed. According to the Hon'ble Court, in the case under consideration, the assessment year is AY 2017-18 and when the same falls beyond the period of 3 years, the sanction ought to have been obtained u/s 151(ii) and not under section 151(i). Ac…

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

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3722/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. K Gopal/ Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Meena Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 154Section 250Section 68

…law. 2) The impugned order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the NFAC upholding the validity of the approval under section 151 of the Act is in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bombay) [25-08-2023] and therefore, unsustainable and bad in law. 3) The NFAC is not justified in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings without appreciating the fact that the notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act has been issued by the Jurisdictional 2 ITA No. 3722/MUM/2024 & CO No. 165/MUM/2024 (A.Y.: 201…

Arihant Engineers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3660/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Akhatar Hussain AnsariSr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3660/Mum./2024 (Assessment Year :2018–2019) Arihant Engineers R 519 TTC Industrial Estate, MIDC, Rabale, Navi Mumbai – 400701. ……………. Appellant PAN-AASFA5790P v/s Income Tax Officer Ward- 28(1)(1) Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Commercial Complex, Vashi, ……………. Respondent Navi Mumbai – 400703. Assessee by : Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue by :Shri. Akhatar Hussain AnsariSr. DR Date of Hearing – 04/09/2024 Date of Order –01/10/2024 O R D E R PER SA…

Aakruti Ketan Mehta, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3477/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 148A

…y, the impugned assessment order also will not survive in the eyes of law. In support of this proposition, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom). 7. The Ld. DR, on the contrary, submitted that the notice issued by the AO under the old provisions of section 148 has been regularized by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra). He submitted that, under the old provisions, approval should be obtained from Principal Commissioner and hence, the AO has obtained appro…

Pankaj Surech Rach, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2290/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 50C

…| आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2290/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pankaj Suresh Rach Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward, Palm Court Complex Vs 4(1)(1), Mumbai “H” Wingh Flat No. 1102, Link Road Malad (W) Mumbai - 400064 [PAN: AJBPR9313B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A/R Revenue by : Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 30/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of P…

Purohit Food Products Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 10(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2015-16 Purohit Food Products Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-10(3)(1), 1-10, Dhiraj Pen Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 58-59, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai. J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai. Pan : Aagcp5590F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Singh A/W. Shri Akshay Pawar, For Revenue : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh a/wFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2015-16 Purohit Food Products Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-10(3)(1), 1-10, Dhiraj Pen Compound, vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 58-59, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai. J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai. PAN : AAGCP5590F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Singh a/w. Shri Akshay Pawar, For Revenue : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 01-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has f…

Rajendra Kumar Meena, Gangapur vs. ITO Ward-2 Sawamadhopur, Gangapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 516/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 cuke Rajendra Kumar Meena ITO, Vs. Sanjay Colony Gangapur Ward Ward-2, Sawamadhopur, No. 21, Gangapur, Sawai Gangapur Madhopur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BOLPM 6615 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, A…

Mark Electronics Corporation, Dissolved vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ao, Accordingly

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mark Electronics Income Tax Officer Corporation (Dissolved) Ward-29(1) Through erstwhile Vs. Delhi partner Ms. Manjula Bhargava U-1, 2nd Floor, Green Park Extension New Delhi-110016 PAN:AAFFM 7682M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Priyanshu Goel, CA Respondent by Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement 12/06/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned C…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Parinee Housing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3408/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 185

…d authority has not been given in accordance with the provisions of the law, then such a notice has to be held as invalid. 16. This precise issue had come up before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Siemens Financial Services (P) Ltd reported in (2023) 457 ITR 647 order dated 25/08/2023 wherein Hon’ble High Court observed and held as under:- “20. Under Section 151 "specified authority" for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Di…

Parinee Housing Private Limited, Vile Parle West vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - Cental Circle 2(4), Mumbai, New Marine Lines, Churchgate

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2884/MUM/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 185