PCIT v. Sreelekha Damani

307 CTR 218High Court2019#433 most cited

What is PCIT v. Sreelekha Damani authority for?

The validity of approval is a fundamental issue that can be raised at any time, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear such issues even if they did not originate from the orders of the CIT(A).

208

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani · validity of approval · jurisdiction of Tribunal · CIT(A) orders · fundamental issue · raised at any time

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 153DSection 143(3)Section 153CSection 132Section 153BSection 143(2)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 153aofsection 127(2)(a)casus omissussection 153(1)(a)sanctioning authoritynon application of mindsection 153a(1)(b)section 142(2a)section 153bsection 153dnon-application of mindsection 142a

Judgments citing PCIT v. Sreelekha Damani

Jitender Kumar Garg, Faridabad Haryana vs. DCIT Central Cricle 2 Faridbad, Faridabad Haryana

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

ITA 6126/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Khem Chand Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…nctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co-ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(Mum.) which has been approved by jurisdictional High Court 8 ITA No.6156 & 5 ors./DEL/2024 subsequently, reported in 307 CTR 218 affirms the plea of the Assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:- "1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 19th August, 2015. 2. Following question was argued before us for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of t…

Mridul Shashikant Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 3645/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…obacco Company (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)  PCIT vs Dte Exports P. Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)  Smt. Abha Bansal vs PCIT (Central) (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi-Trib)  Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) (HC)  PCIT vs Smt. ShreelekhaDamani (2018) 307 CTR 218 (Bom) Mridul Shashikant Khandelwal (AY 2018-19 & 2020-21) ITA Nos. 3644 & 3645/Mum/2025  ACIT vs Serajuddin& Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Orissa) (HC) 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of PCIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that assessing officer has not carried out the required verification and passed the assessm…

Mridul Shashikant Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT Central -1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 3644/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…obacco Company (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)  PCIT vs Dte Exports P. Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)  Smt. Abha Bansal vs PCIT (Central) (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi-Trib)  Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) (HC)  PCIT vs Smt. ShreelekhaDamani (2018) 307 CTR 218 (Bom) Mridul Shashikant Khandelwal (AY 2018-19 & 2020-21) ITA Nos. 3644 & 3645/Mum/2025  ACIT vs Serajuddin& Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Orissa) (HC) 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of PCIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that assessing officer has not carried out the required verification and passed the assessm…

Hari Kishan Rathi, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 2242/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhari Kishan Rathi, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 14, A – 184, Shivalik, Malviya Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 007. (Pan : Aakpr2574C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 07.11.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-31, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 11.07.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ay 2015-16 :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Is Bad Both In Eyes Of Law & On Facts. 2. That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Approval U/S 153D Of The Act Granted By Addl. Cit On 30.12.2019 Was Not Accorded In A Mechanical Manner. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Fact That Such Approval Had Been Taken From Addl.Cit On 30.12.2019 When The 2 Compliance For Show Cause Notice Issued On 30.12.2019 Was Fixed For 31.12.2019. 3. That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Addition To The Extent Of Rs.2,27,717/- On Account Of Renovation Expenses.” 3. Before Deciding The Legal Issue In Dispute, We May Gainfully Reproduce The Approval U/S. 153D Of The Income Tax Act (For Short ‘The Act’), Which Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153D

…u/s 153D of the Act. Such perfunctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co- ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(Mum.) which has been approved by jurisdictional High Court subsequently, reported in 307 CTR 218 affirms the plea of the Assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:- "1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 19th August, 2015. 2. Following question was argued before us for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of t…

Ashu Ashok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1046/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

…u/s 153D of the Act. Such perfunctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co- ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(Mum.) which has been approved by jurisdictional High Court subsequently, reported in 307 CTR 218 affirms the plea of the Assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:- "1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 19th August, 2015. 2. Following question was argued before us for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of t…

Ashu Ashok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1045/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

…u/s 153D of the Act. Such perfunctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co- ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(Mum.) which has been approved by jurisdictional High Court subsequently, reported in 307 CTR 218 affirms the plea of the Assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:- "1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 19th August, 2015. 2. Following question was argued before us for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of t…

Ashu Asok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 271Section 68

…u/s 153D of the Act. Such perfunctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co- ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(Mum.) which has been approved by jurisdictional High Court subsequently, reported in 307 CTR 218 affirms the plea of the Assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:- "1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 19th August, 2015. 2. Following question was argued before us for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of t…

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 38/ALLD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT, (CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 37/ALLD/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT, (CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 36/ALLD/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 127/ALLD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 126/ALLD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 125/ALLD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT(C.C.), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 101/ALLD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad vs. Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 65/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad vs. Vijay Stone Products, Sonebhadra

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 64/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 33/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 32/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 31/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…

Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 30/ALLD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…ing that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has preceded wholly upon some other ground other than on which the Appellate Court proceeds. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sreelekha Damani (2019)307 CTR 218 (Bom) has held that the question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In these circumstances, and in view of these precedents, we cannot accept the arguments offered by the ld. DRs that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear such issues simply because they did not emanate out…