Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT

72 ITD 97Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#1435 most cited

What is Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT authority for?

A mere irregularity in granting approval under Section 158BG of the Income-tax Act does not render the resulting assessment order invalid or fatal.

79

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT · Section 158BG approval · assessment order validity · procedural irregularity · block assessment · search assessment · 72 ITD 97 · not fatal to assessment · Section 153A · Section 132 · ITAT Delhi

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 153DSection 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 158BGSection 132Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 136section 43(3)section 193section 196section 37bsection 255(4)section 114(e)section 158bgsection 274(2)section 153(a)audi alteram partemsection 144ba

Judgments citing Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…anting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. ACIT, 68 ITD 148 and of the Delhi ITAT in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT, 72 ITD 97. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Gayathri Textiles v. CIT, 111 taxman 123 where it was held that for the purpose of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1789/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…anting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. ACIT, 68 ITD 148 and of the Delhi ITAT in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT, 72 ITD 97. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Gayathri Textiles v. CIT, 111 taxman 123 where it was held that for the purpose of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…anting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. ACIT, 68 ITD 148 and of the Delhi ITAT in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT, 72 ITD 97. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Gayathri Textiles v. CIT, 111 taxman 123 where it was held that for the purpose of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…anting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. ACIT, 68 ITD 148 and of the Delhi ITAT in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT, 72 ITD 97. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Gayathri Textiles v. CIT, 111 taxman 123 where it was held that for the purpose of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire…

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Shri Satish Kumar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…anting approval in the context of Section 158BG of the Act was held not to be fatal to the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Kolkata ITAT in Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. ACIT, 68 ITD 148 and of the Delhi ITAT in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT, 72 ITD 97. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Gayathri Textiles v. CIT, 111 taxman 123 where it was held that for the purpose of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the failure to obtain prior permission from the IAC for imposing penalty was only a procedural error and not fatal to the order of penalty. (vi) Since the entire…

Dilip B. Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-II, Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 355/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Ved
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271A

…n the following cases, it was also held that the CIT need not give opportunity of hearing to assessee before approval u/s158BG i. Rishab Chand Bhansali vs DCIT [267 ITR 577(Kar)). ii. Shaktavail Bankers vs DCIT (255ITR144(Mad] iii. Kailash Mandgil vs DCIT (72 ITD 97 (ITAT Del.)(SB)]. 6.1 The appellant has also argued that there is no satisfaction/application of mind of Addl. CIT before granting approval. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in case of Sahara India vs CIT, 169 Taxmann 328(SC). The facts and issue in case of Sahara India (supra) are totally different. In the case of Sahara India, it pertai…

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6807/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Arch Pharmalabas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6656/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Arch Pharmalabas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3752/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3751/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3750/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3749/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Arch Imex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3748/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8090/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8089/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Arch Pharmalabs Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7597/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Arch Pharmalabs Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7595/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…nt case the Drafts submitted on 29.12.2010,were approved on 31.12.2010. 23. Further, assuming without admitting that some infirmity is there, it is curable under law, as held by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' (Special Bench) in Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT[2000] 72 ITD 97 (Delhi) (SB)/[2000] 67 TTJ 145 (Delhi) (SB) 13. ..................Then, what is the role of the Commissioner while granting approval to the assessment order prepared by the A.O. and putting it before him for approval. We have already seen what is meant by 'approval'. The word 'approval' means to be satisfied with, to sanction officially, to ratify,…

Rajesh Ladhani, Faizabad vs. DCIT CC, Agra

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaita No. 106,107 & 108/Agra/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. Dy. C.I.T. –Central Circle, Rajesh Ladhani, 259, Savera Bhawan, Ram Nagar Colony, Agra. Faizabad. Pan: Abapl5646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

…stinguish the order dated 18th September 2019 passed by this Bench in the cases of Shri Saurabh Agarwal & Ors Vs DCIT, Central Circle, Agra (supra) on the strength of following Judgments: (a) S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) (b) Kailash Moudgil Vs DCIT 72 ITD 97 (Special Bench) (c) K.M Bansal Vs CIT 195 ITR 247 (Allahabad) (d) PCIT Vs ITAT 88 taxman.com 644 (Del) (e) Presidency Talkies Ltd Vs ITO 25 ITR 447 (Mad.) 7. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of case laws relied upon by both the parties and order granting Approval dated 27.03.2015 passed under section 153-D of the Act, which wa…

Anurag Mittal, Firozabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 136/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…Bench in the cases of Shri Saurabh Agarwal & Ors Vs DCIT, Central Circle, Agra (supra) on the strength of following Judgments: ITA No. 135 & 136/Agr/2018 9 Asst. Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 (a) S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) (b) Kailash Moudgil Vs DCIT 72 ITD 97 (Special Bench) (c) K.M Bansal Vs CIT 195 ITR 247 (Allahabad) (d) PCIT Vs ITAT 88 taxman.com 644 (Del) (e) Presidency Talkies Ltd Vs ITO 25 ITR 447 (Mad.) 7. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of case laws relied upon by both the parties and order granting Approval dated 26.03.2015 passed under section 153-D of the Act, which ha…