Manju Somani v. ITO

466 ITR 758High Court2024#8630 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Also reported as

165 Taxmann.com 675300 Taxmann 516

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 148ASection 143(3)Section 69ASection 144BSection 149(1)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 148bsection 7(1)section 119(2)(a)section 116within four yearssection 149(1)(b)section 164section 153a(1)(a)section 144babeyond four yearssection 149(1)section 153a(1)(b)

Judgments citing Manju Somani v. ITO

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

…s prescribed in first proviso to s. 149(1) of the Act. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani vs. ITO (2024) 340 CTR (Del) 946 : (2024) 242 DTR (Del) 241 : (2024) 466 ITR 758 (Del) : (2024) 300 Taxman 516 (Del) : (2024) Page. No 19 I.T.A.No.459/VIZ/2025 Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri 165 taxmann.com 675 (Del) : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:5411- DB. 6. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court in a recent decision of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) has observed as under : "46. The ingredients of the proviso…

CHODAY JANAKI RAMAYYA CHOWDARY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 623/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…ed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani Page. No 14 I.T.A.No.623/VIZ/2025 Choday Janaki Ramayya Chowdary vs. ITO (2024) 340 CTR (Del) 946 : (2024) 242 DTR (Del) 241 : (2024) 466 ITR 758 (Del) : (2024) 300 Taxman 516 (Del) : (2024) 165 taxmann.com 675 (Del) : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:5411- DB. 6. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court in a recent decision of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) has observed as under : "46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows : (i) no noti…

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: CA Deepak Gunashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69Section 69C

…s prescribed in first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 675/300 Taxman 516/466 ITR 758 (Delhi): Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB. 6. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court in a recent decision of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) (SC) has observed as under: "46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section…

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(ix)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.368/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyaprem Rajabhau Dhole, ITO,Ward-1(5), Aurangabad Adas Kaij, Beed-431517 Vs. PAN : CBJPD5458H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual) Department by : Shri Manish Mehta Date of hearing : 21-01-2026 Date of 12-02-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed…

NEETA BHAMBHANI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA 3124/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Adv. Ema Bindu, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT D.R
Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

…s prescribed in first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 675/300 Taxman 516/466 ITR 758 (Delhi): Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB. 6. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court in a recent decision of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) (SC) has observed as under: "46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section…

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

ITA 2715/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

…sment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses 4.7 To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manju Somani v. ITO in 466 ITR 758. 4.8 In terms of the aforesaid settled legal position, it needs to be tested whether the impugned assessment year i.e. 2012-13 could have been reopened, had the erstwhile provision of section 153A continue to remain applicable to search conducted even after 01.04.2021 4.9 In the present case, search under section 132 was conducted on 09.02.2022.…

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

ITA 2713/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 250

…sment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses 4.7 To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manju Somani v. ITO in 466 ITR 758. 4.8 In terms of the aforesaid settled legal position, it needs to be tested whether the impugned assessment year i.e. 2012-13 could have been reopened, had the erstwhile provision of section 153A continue to remain applicable to search conducted even after 01.04.2021 4.9 In the present case, search under section 132 was conducted on 09.02.2022.…

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

ITA 2712/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

…sment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses 4.7 To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manju Somani v. ITO in 466 ITR 758. 4.8 In terms of the aforesaid settled legal position, it needs to be tested whether the impugned assessment year i.e. 2012-13 could have been reopened, had the erstwhile provision of section 153A continue to remain applicable to search conducted even after 01.04.2021 4.9 In the present case, search under section 132 was conducted on 09.02.2022.…

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

ITA 2711/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 250

…sment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses 4.7 To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manju Somani v. ITO in 466 ITR 758. 4.8 In terms of the aforesaid settled legal position, it needs to be tested whether the impugned assessment year i.e. 2012-13 could have been reopened, had the erstwhile provision of section 153A continue to remain applicable to search conducted even after 01.04.2021 4.9 In the present case, search under section 132 was conducted on 09.02.2022.…

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

ITA 2709/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

…ment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses. 4.7 To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manju Somani v. ITO in 466 ITR 758. 4.8 In terms of the aforesaid settled legal position, it needs to be tested whether the impugned assessment year i.e. 2012-13 could have been reopened, had the erstwhile provision of section 153A continue to remain applicable to search conducted even after 01.04.2021 4.9 In the present case, search under section 132 was conducted on 09.02.2022.…

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2022-23 in ITA

ITA 2708/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 4153 & 4008/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2018-19) Dcit, Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ground Floor, Jmd Regent Room No. 269A, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Plaza, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Haryana-122001. Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aahcs5999J

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…sment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses 4.7 To the same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manju Somani v. ITO in 466 ITR 758. 4.8 In terms of the aforesaid settled legal position, it needs to be tested whether the impugned assessment year i.e. 2012-13 could have been reopened, had the erstwhile provision of section 153A continue to remain applicable to search conducted even after 01.04.2021 4.9 In the present case, search under section 132 was conducted on 09.02.2022.…

ANAND BHAUSAHEB BHALEKAR,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD -1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1207/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1207/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anand Bhausaheb Bhalekar, V The Income Tax Plot No.259/C, Gut No.126/2, S Officer, Shantiban Hariram Nagar, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Behind Nandini Hotel, Aurangabad – 431001. Pan: Aompb6314E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubham Rathi – Virtual Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar – Virtual Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 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(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16Dated 12.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”ए” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.1207/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anand Bhausaheb Bhalekar, V The Income Tax Plot No.259/C, Gut No.126/2, s Officer, Shantiban Hariram Nagar, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Behind Nandini Hotel, Aurangabad – 431001. PAN: AOMPB6314E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Shubham Rathi – Virtual Revenue by Smt Neha Thakkar – Virtual Date of hearing 19/01/2026 Date of pronouncem…

SIGNATURE BUILDERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 6432/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 131Section 132Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 153

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Signature Builders Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-04, (Earlier E-2, ARA Centre, known as Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd.). Jhandewalan Extension, Unit No.1309, 13th Floor, Delhi-110055 Dr. Gopal Das Bhavan, 28 Barakhamba Road, Delhi-110001 PAN: AAPCS8794K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. & Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for asses…

Manju Somani v. ITO (466 ITR 758) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax