How many judgments cite Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT?

89 judgments on BharatTax cite Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT (346 ITR 443), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 250, Section 69A.

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT

346 ITR 443High Court2012#1288 most cited

What is Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT authority for?

The reassessment proceedings are invalid if the required sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act is not obtained from the statutorily designated authority or if the approval is granted mechanically without due satisfaction. Approval by a higher authority cannot substitute the satisfaction of the authority specified in Section 151.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT · Section 151 · reassessment validity · approval under Section 151 · sanction for reassessment · designated authority · mechanical approval · invalid reassessment · Section 148 · Chief Commissioner approval

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 716

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 151 Section 250 Section 69A Section 115BBE Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 117 section 116 real income theory section 151(2)approval under section 151 within four years section 151(1)beyond four years section 151(ii)kelvinator mere change of opinion chief commissioner

Judgments citing Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 368/HYD/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40

…f the Commissioner of Income Tax- 9, Mumbai, i.e., not the appropriate authority, we find that the same is clearly covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bombay). In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court had observed that as section 151(2) mandates satisfaction of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act in certain cases, therefore, reopening of an assessment in such a case with the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax is unsustainable. For the sa…

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1882/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

…ed valid. :- 64 -: ITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 Integrated Service Point Ltd. 168. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT, reported in 346 ITR 443, dated 12 March 2012, which held that: “When the statute mandates the satisfaction of a particular functionary for the exercise of a power, the satisfaction must be of that authority. Where a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner” 169. Under circumstances closely similar to the present cas…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1879/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

ITA 1876/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

…ered valid. :- 63 -: ITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 Integrated Service Point Ltd. 168. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT, reported in 346 ITR 443, dated 12 March 2012, which held that: “When the statute mandates the satisfaction of a particular functionary for the exercise of a power, the satisfaction must be of that authority. Where a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner” 169. Under circumstances closely similar to the present case…

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

ITA 1874/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCA

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

…red valid. - : 64 -: ITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 Integrated Service Point Ltd. 168. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT, reported in 346 ITR 443, dated 12 March 2012, which held that: “When the statute mandates the satisfaction of a particular functionary for the exercise of a power, the satisfaction must be of that authority. Where a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner” 169. Under circumstances closely similar to the present case…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROHTAK vs. PANKAJ JAIN, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaincome Tax Officer, Vs. Pankaj Jain, Rohtak. 123/34, Vishwakarma Kathmandi, Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Azupj6345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate Shri Nakul Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora,Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Upholding The Validity Of The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Without The Proper & Mandatory Compliance With The Provisions Of Section 148A(B). 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Law & On Facts By Failing To Consider That The Then Ao Has Given Notice U/S 148A(B) To Assessee On 31.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora,Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 292BSection 37(1)

…or General, but the AO seeks approval from Ld. PCIT, Rohtak which is in gross violation on Sec. 151 of the Act, which renders 6 the whole re-assessment proceedings null and void. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws :-  Ghansnyam K. Khabrani 346 ITR 443 (Born)  SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. 345 ITR 223 (Delhi)  Sunint Investment & Technologies P. Ltd. 54 SOT 126 (Del) 5. Ld. CIT (A) perused the written submissions and observed that the assessee has raised some of the valid objections in the written submissions dated 07.01.2025 by filing notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. From the said notice, ld.…

UMAR DARAJ,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

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

ITA 3095/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 40A

…tices issued prior to 01.04.2021. Thus, just as in Prabhakar Nerulkar, the approval here is vitiated as it is nothing but an endorsement by the PCIT. It will not be out of place to refer to judgment rendered in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom) and reaffirmed in Pr. CIT v. Khushbu Industries (Bombay HC, ITXA 1035/2017, judgment dated 11.11.2019) wherein it was held that sanction by a higher authority cannot substitute the satisfaction of the statutorily designated authority under Section 151 of the Act. Thus, the notice dated 30.03.2021, having been approved by the wrong authority…

SPORTKING INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2223/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2223/Del/2018, A.Y. 2006-07 Sportking India Ltd. Joint Commissioner of 5/69, Guru Mansion, Income Tax, Circle–9(1), 1st Floor, Padam Singh Road, Vs. C. R, Building, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 I. P. Estate, New Delhi PAN: AAACS3037Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA Sh. Ankur Agarwal, CA Sh. Aditya Kumar, CA Respondent by Sh. Surinder Pal, CIT DR Ms. Suman Malik, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 01/0…

SUNIDHI SECURITIES & FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5938/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agrawal, Am Sunidhi Securities & Finance The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 4(2)(1), Mumbai 8Th Floor, Unit-1, Kalpataru Inspire, Room No. 642, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Vs. Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Santacruz K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (East), Mumbai – 400055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcs1657D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Shashi Bekal : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been 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) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Of Reopening The Assessment Merely Based On Reason To Suspect & Not Reason To Believe & Is Therefore Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Treating The Trading In Steel Exchange India Limited Through Recognized Stock Exchange As Bogus Trading Loss. Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited

For Appellant: Shri. Shashi Bekal

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 250

…hand, notice u/s. 148 was issued after obtaining sanction from ld. PCIT and not ld. JCIT as per the provisions of the Act. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443/20 taxmann.com 716 (Bom)(HC) wherein it was held that obtaining sanction of the Superior Officer instead of the Requisite Officer is held to be not a curable defect, where the legislature requires sanction of a particular authority for the purpose of reopening the assessment of the assessee. As it has been a settled proposition of law, we deem it…

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…that if a particular authority has been designated to perform an action on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should do that action. We draw support from various decision of Honorable High courts in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT [2012] 346 ITR 443 (Bom), CIT v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (delhi )and also of the Honourable supreme court Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under :— 13. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in 'Administrative Law', 7th Edition at pages 358 and 359 under the heading 'SURREN…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

…date. 60. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the following decisions wherein reassessment has been held to be invalid in absence of valid sanction being obtained: CIT v. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Del) Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT: [2012] 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) DSJ Communication Ltd. v. DCIT: [2014] 222 Taxman 129 (Bom.) Dhadda Exports v. ITO: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.913/2015 (Raj.) Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. v. DCIT: Special Civil Application No. 17184 of 2012 (Guj.) 61. For the aforesaid reason, too, since complete reasons, as required in law, were not provided to the assess…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

JOSEPH MATHEW KUNNATHETTU,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 899/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjoseph Mathew Kunnathettu Vs. Acit Circle 3, 14, Trimurthi Apartment, Gandhi 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Nagar, Dombivili (E), Maharashtra – Murbad Road Kalyan, 421 201 Maharashtra – 421 301 Pan: Ailpk9660M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Joseph Mathew Kunnathettu Vs. ACIT Circle 3, 14, Trimurthi Apartment, Gandhi 2nd floor, Rani Mansion, Nagar, Dombivili (E), Maharashtra – Murbad Road Kalyan, 421 201 Maharashtra – 421 301 PAN: AILPK9660M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Dr. P. Daniel & Shri Joseph P. K. Ld. AR Department Represented by : Shri Asif Karmali, Ld. DR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 21.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2025 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):…

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…that if a particular authority has been designated to perform an action on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should do that action. We draw support from various decision of Honorable High courts in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT [2012] 346 ITR 443 (Bom), CIT v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (delhi ) and also of the Honourable supreme court AnirudhsinhjiKaransinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under :— --13. It has been stated by Wade and Forsyth in 'Administrative Law', 7th Edition at pages 358 and 359 under the heading 'SURREND…

SHAKUNTLA DEVI,TIJARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI

In the result the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 864/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 2(14)Section 69B

…the Court would not expect its being done in some other manner. Satisfaction of one authority cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of other authority. Similarly, following this decision, the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Ghanshaym K Khabrani (346 ITR 443) has held that approval which has been granted is not by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax but by the Commissioner of Income Tax, there is no statutory provision under which a power to be exercised by an officer and be exercised by a superior officer. The Court further laid down that when the statue mandates the satisfaction of a particular fu…

TANVI SANDEEP MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

…ITA No.20/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, The Deputy Commissioner of C/o. M.S. Chhajed & Co., Income Tax, “Kamal Shanti”, Circle – 7(1), Beside Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad. Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Vs. Naranpura, Ahmedabad – 380 014. [PAN – ANFPM 6538 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hem Chhajed, AR (VH) Revenue by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.07.2024 Date of Prono…

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 5

…se to Section 292B of the IT Act. The same has also followed recently by the Honble ITAT Jodhpur Bench Jodhpur in the case of Preeti Navin Mehta v/s ITO Ward 1(4) Udaipur, in ITA No. 13 to 16/Jodh/2022 dt. 15.12.2023. Also refer Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v/s ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom.) and 12 ITA No. 157/JPR/2024 Suva lal Paharia vs. ITO In the case of CIT V/s SPL's Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del). Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice u/s 151(1)—AO issued notice u/s 147 read with S. 148 for reopening assessment after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, which was subsequently set aside by ITAT o…

POOJA DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-29(2)(5), (CURRENT JURIDICTION: WARD-41(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3690/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Pooja Developers बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(5) Shop No. 4 (Damini Wines) [Current Jurisdiction Vs. Shiv Shakti Building, Jn Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai] Road, Near Apna Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400080. Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaifp5595M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…uashed by the Tribunal under identical facts due to lack of satisfaction by the prescribed authority in terms of proviso to section 151(1) of the Act. The Hon‘ble Bombay High Court has expressed similar view in the case of Ghanshyam K Khabrani Vs. ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in quashing the impugned assessment order. The grounds raised are allowed. 7. As we have decided the appeal on legal issue, the grounds raised on merits by the assessee are of mere academic nature and, hence, required no adjudication. Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent ind…

M/S. RDC VENTURES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-27, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ees of Parsi Panchayat Funds & Properties vs. DIT] vii. Hon'ble Telangana High Court judgment in [2023] 156 taxmann.com 178 (Tel) Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. ITO viii. [1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC) CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works. ix. 346 ITR 443 (Bom) Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT: 17. On the other hand, the ld. D.R has vehemently contended that the Pr.CIT-27, Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction over the case and correctly exercised the power to invoke provision of Sec. 263 of the Act. The ld. D.R has made reference to the various notification issued P a g e | 13 M/s RDC Ventures Vs. P…

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL (HUF),ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-1, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 137/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita No.137 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sunil Kumar (Huf) Sunil Kumar (Huf), K-3, Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Civil Township, Rourkela. Civil Township, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aakhs 0609 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass : Shri Charan Dass, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/10 10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10 17/10/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…relied upon various decisions in the cases of P a g e 5 | 8 Commissioner of Income-Tax -v- Kelvinator of India Ltd. & another, reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), Ghanshyam K. Khabrani -v- Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and others, reported in (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-Tax -v- SPL's Siddhartha Ltd., reported in (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Delhi), Commissioner of Income-Tax -v- Aquatic Remedies P. Ltd., reported in (2018) 406 ITR 545 (Bom) and Ramballabh Gupta -v- Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax and others, reported in (2007) 288 ITR 347 (MP). 6. Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the…

Showing 1–20 of 89 · Page 1 of 5