Rajiv Bansal v. UoI

453 ITR 153High Court2023#21017 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148A

Issues it is cited on

section 149(1)(b)extension of limitationsection 149(1)section 148a(b)income escaping assessmentsection 149section 148asection 148a(d)section 151notice under section 148reassessment proceedingssection 153c

Judgments citing Rajiv Bansal v. UoI

SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

ITA 5653/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250

…he period of one month had to be counted from 30/06/2022, which would fall on 30/07/2022. (viii) The Learned counsel for the Respondents has referred to judgments in :- (a) Ashish Agarwal (supra); (b) Rajeev Bansal v. Union of India [2023] 147 taxmann.com 549/453 ITR 153 (Allahabad); (c) Virendra Ship Recyclers LLP v. Asstt. CIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 588 (Bombay); (d) Income-tax Officer v. Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya [2024] 168 taxmann.com 588/[2025] 302 Taxman 183 (SC); (e) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. [2025] 170 taxmann.com 589/303 Taxman 333 (SC); (f) Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(2)(2), , MUMBAI vs. MORADIYA GEMS LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 6578/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalito, Ward – 19(2)(2) Vs. Moradia Gems Llp 503, 5Th Floor, Piramal Unit No. 2, The Jewel Chamber, Lalbaug – Mama Parmanand 400012. Marg, Opera House, Mumbai – 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aawfm5039P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 3Section 69A

…under. "Reassessment Notice Limitation Law applicable Effect of amendments by Finance Act, 2021- Notice barred by limitation under unamended provisions Notice issued on 30-7-2022 to reopen assessments for 2013-14 and 2014-15-Not valid Income Tax Act, 1961". 453 ITR 153 (All) Rajeev BansalVs UOI &Ors. In this case Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: "Reassessment-Notice-Law applicable Effect of amendment to sections 147 to 151 by Finance Act, 2021 and taxation and other laws (relaxation and amendment of certain provisions) 5 Moradiay Gems LLP., Mumbai. act, 2020 CBDT instruction no. 1 of 2022 has no b…

KRISHNAMOORTHY HARIOBHASKAR,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1506/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1506/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Krishnamoorthy Haribhaskar, The Income Tax Officer, 35/11, Poochakkadu, 2Nd Street, Ward-2(1), Mangalam Road, Tirupur-641 604. Tirupur. [Pan: Abkph 9735 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S.LakshmiFor Respondent: Shri Praveen, JCIT
Section 139Section 148Section 148ASection 149

…e erstwhile Act), the AO could not have issued notice u/s.148A of the substituted Finance Act, 2021. In order to buttress such a proposition he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal v. UoI reported in [2023] 453 ITR 153 (Allahabad) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rasikbhai Dhaiyabhai Chauhan v. ACIT reported in [2023] 151 taxmann.com 310 (Gujarat) and he also submitted that similar issue had come up before the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court, wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court was pleased to grant stay of further proceedings (re-…

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 54ESection 54F

…e erstwhile Act), the AO could not have issued notice u/s.148A of the substituted Finance Act, 2021. In order to buttress such a proposition he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal v. UoI reported in [2023] 453 ITR 153 (Allahabad) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rasikbhai Dhaiyabhai Chauhan v. ACIT reported in [2023] 151 taxmann.com 310 (Gujarat) and he also submitted that similar issue had come up before the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court, wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court was pleased to grant stay of further proceedings (re-…

Rajiv Bansal v. UoI (453 ITR 153) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax