Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 149, Section 148A, Section 151, Section 250.

Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693

Q: How many judgments cite Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 (2024 INSC 754), spanning 2023 to 2026.

2024 INSC 754Supreme Court of India2024#4893 most cited

What is Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 authority for?

A notice issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside, particularly when the benefit of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, is not applicable.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal · section 149(1) · reassessment notice · limitation period · TOLA · beyond limitation · set aside notice · 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 · 2024 INSC 754

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 147 Section 149 Section 148A Section 151 Section 250 Section 144B Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 149(1)(b)section 149(1)order under section 148a(d)section 148a(b)section 151(ii)section 148a(d)section 149 section 148a specified authority notice under section 148 chief commissioner section 151

Judgments citing Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693

SRI KONANUR BASAVANNA GURULINGASWAMY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/22515/2024HC Karnataka07 Apr 2026

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav Writ Petition No. 22515 Of 2024 (T-It) Between: Sri. Konanur Basavanna Gurulingaswamy, No. 2085, 1St Cross, Madhavachar Road, Kr Mohalla, Mysore-570004, Pan : Aqspk3209P, Reprented By His Poa Holder Smt. Dr. Manjula A Patil, No. 2085, 1St Cross, Madhavachar Road, Kr Mohalla, Mysore-570004. …Petitioner (By Sri. Hemant Pai, Advocate For Sri. Ravi Shankar S. V., Advocate) And: 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward Intl. Taxation 1(2), Bangalore-560095. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mysore-570008. 3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Digitally Signed By Mamatha R Location: High Court Of Karnataka

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3

…ar 2015-16. It is submitted that such proceedings are time barred. It is submitted that the time limit prescribed for initiating proceedings will have to be read in terms with the observation made in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal reported in 2024 INSC 754. Attention is drawn to para-19(e) and 19(f) of the said decision, which are extracted as below: "e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18754 WP No. 22515 of 2024 TOLA. Section…

DAVALBEN BALUBHAI MAKWANA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1173/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 148Section 234ASection 44ASection 69A

…ppeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee’s case is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of UOI v. Ashish Agarwal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) and UOI v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 INSC 754 (SC). At the time of hearing, the assessee submitted the following chart:- From the perusal of the said chart, it appears that to issue the notice u/s. 148 was uptil 16-06-2022 and thus the I.T.A No.1173/Srt/2025 Davalben Balubhai Makwana, A.Y. 2017-18 notice is time barred by approximately 43 days. Thus, the notice itself is bad in law and…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. STAR WIRE INDIA LTD.

ITA/736/2025HC Delhi03 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 148

…$~12 to 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 736/2025, CM APPL. 77312/2025, CM APPL. 77313/2025. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhati, SSC versus STAR WIRE INDIA LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Samarth Choudhari, Advs. 13 + ITA 737/2025, CM APPL. 77393/2025, CM APPL. 77394/2025. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhati, SSC versus STAR WIRE INDIA LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Samarth Choudhari, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTI…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. STAR WIRE INDIA LTD.

ITA/737/2025HC Delhi03 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 148

THE HISAR LEADING BANK CO-OP NON-AGRI THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,HISAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 5087/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

…Court in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, cited supra. 6.1 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, decided on 24.03.2025 in paras 8, 11 & 12 held as under: “8. In a subsequent decision in Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754, the Supreme Court considered the manner of applicability of the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. During the said proceedings it was conceded on behalf of the Revenue that TOLA was not applicable for reopening the assessments for AY 2015-16. The said concession was recorded…

TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5742/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249Section 271(1)(b)Section 69ASection 80P

…t. The question, whether such notices issued in respect of the Assessment Year, 20152016 were sustainable was a subject matter of observation by the Supreme Court of India, in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46/2024 INSC 754. During the said proceedings, it was readily conceded by the Revenue that all such notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 in respect of Assessment Year 2015-2016 were liable to be dropped. Paragraph 19 (e) and 19 (f) of the said decision are reproduced below: “e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime…

M/S QUASAR INDIA LTD ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

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

ITA 343/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Quasar India Limited, Vs. Assessment Unit-Nfca, 101, First Floor, Baroda Tower, Income Tax Department, Central Market, Prashant Vihar, Acit, Circle 19(1), Rohini, Delhi-1100 85. Delhi Pan :Aaacq0219Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

…resent petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 23.03.2025 [impugned order] passed by the Assessing Officer [AO] on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 and by this court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:547-DB. 4. The petitioner had filed its return of income dated 30.09.2014 for Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15 declaring a total income of 864,77,780/-. 5. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] was issued by the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), NEW DELHI vs. KOLAHAI INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED , NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3399/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Kolahai, Infotech Private Limited Ward-14(3) , Room 129, First Floor Transport Centre No.305 Cr Building I.P. Punjabi Bagh New Delhi, Delhi- Estate New Delhi -110002 110034

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 14ASection 68

…s issued on 30-07-2022 which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under section 149(1) of the Act, and TOLA is not applicable in respect of the said notice, as was conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union Of India V. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra). The impugned notice is liable to be set aside.” 6. Reliance has also placed on the followings judgments; (i)IBIBO groups Private Limited v. ACIT, circle 10(1) & Anr. W.P. (C) 17639/2022 (ii) Pratishtha Garg v. ACIT, central Circle 25 Delhi (Delhi High Court) (iii) Income tax officer , ward -62(1), New Delhi v. Girish Kumar Gupt…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SBK TRADE AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 2173/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Cc – 04, Vs. M/S. Sbk Trade & Infrastructure Private Ltd., New Delhi. 211, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aarcs9589C) Co No.110 /Del/2025 (In Ita No.2173/Del/2025) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S. Sbk Trade & Infrastructure Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc – 04, 211, New Delhi House, New Delhi. 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aarcs9589C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-23 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, CC – 04, vs. M/s. SBK Trade and Infrastructure Private Ltd., New Delhi. 211, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AARCS9589C) CO No.110 /Del/2025 (in ITA No.2173/DEL/2025) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/s. SBK Trade and Infrastructure Private Ltd., vs. ACIT, CC – 04, 211, New Delhi House, New Delhi. 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AARCS9589C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI vs. INTERLINK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH DELHI

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4671/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gurdev Singh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148

…s issued on 27.07.2022 which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. And, TOLA is not applicable in respect of the said notice, as was conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra). The impugned notice is liable to be set aside.” 14. Ld. AR further submitted that it is pertinent to mention that in the case of Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jaipur v. R.K. Build Creation Pvt Ltd: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59625/2024 at Page Nos 7-8 of the case law compilation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. INTERLINK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH DELHI

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4670/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gurdev Singh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI vs. INTERLINK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH DELHI

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4669/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gurdev Singh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148

HONEYWELL EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 6033/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Honeywell Exim Private Vs. Acit, Limited, House No. 121, Circle-10(1), A Pkt., B-04, Keshavpuram. Delhi New Delhi-1100 35 1100 07 Pan: Aadch3719B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. , Shri Pawan Garg and Ms. Ishika Dua, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

…ourt in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, cited supra. 6.1 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, decided on 24.03.2025 in paras 8, 11 & 12 held as under: “8. In a subsequent decision in Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754, the Supreme Court considered the manner of applicability of the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. During the said proceedings it was conceded on behalf of the Revenue that TOLA was not applicable for reopening the assessments for AY 2015-16. The said concession was recorded…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. SUNCITY INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4831/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Lgf-10, Vasant Square Mall, Vs. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaics7928N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Pawan Garg, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10115325 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144B Dated 29.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real State. The Return Of Income Of The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,54,930/- & The Same Was Assessee U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 24.11.2017 Wherein The Income Declared Was Accepted By The Ao. Thereafter, Based On The Information That The Assessee Has Dcit Vs. Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Allotted Preference Shares To One Shri Tarun Agarwal, At 16546/- Per Which Were Not Commensurate With The Financials Of The Company & After Obtaining The Approval Form The Competent Authority Notice Was Issued U/S 148 Dated 31.03.2021 Which Was Served Upon The Assessee On 01.04.2021. Thereafter, Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Rs.11,00,00,000/- Was Made On Account Of Share Premium Treated As Unexplained U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149 (1) of the Act. Since TOLA was not applicable in respect of the said notices under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra), the impugned notice is liable to be set aside 7. It is also submitted that the case of the assessee is similar to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Private Limited Versus DCIT/ACIT, Circle 4, Nagpur, Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 5 (1), Nagpur, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Departm…

SANDESH LILADHAR CHAUDHARI,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JALGAON

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

ITA 1228/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 147Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

…el for the Revenue fairly states that the prayers made by the petitioner are required to be allowed as the same are covered by the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, 2024 INSC 754, as recorded in paragraph 19 (f) of the said decision. He also submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had, after noting the aforesaid concession, allowed a similar petition Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle: W.P.(C) 17639/2022 by order dated 13.12.2024. 3. It is relevant to note paragraph 19 (e) and…

GEMINI DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2921/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Nagpal, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 56(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2921/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s Gemini Dyeing and Printing ACIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Room No. 130, 1st Floor, Mills Ltd., Talreja Chawl, Opp. Dawn Mills, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. PAN: AABCG0943J Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Ajay Nagpal, AR : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR Revenue / Respondent by Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Pad…

HEENA IRFAN BEPARI,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1185/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 44A

AKSHAY JAIN,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(2) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

ITA 5966/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Akshay Jain, Acit, B4/52, 1St Floor, Paschim Vihar, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi. International Taxation, Delhi. Pan No.Agdpj9695F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 149

…beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149 (1) of the Act. Since TOLA was not applicable in respect of the said notices under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra), the impugned notice is liable to be set aside 12. Accordingly, the impugned notice and proceedings emanating from the said notice are set aside. 13. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.” 6 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of NATIONALIST CONGRESS PARTY Vs. DCIT (supra). Respectfully…

SKF INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2518/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Prusethskf India Limited., 4Th Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Building, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400002 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaacs0684H

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)

…sel for the Revenue fairly states that the prayers made by the petitioner are required to be allowed as the same are covered by the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, 2024 INSC 754, as recorded in paragraph 19 (f) of the said decision. He also submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had, after not ing the aforesaid concession, allowed a similar petition - Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle: W.P.(C) 17639/2022 by order dated 13.12.2024. 3. It is relevant to note paragraph 19 (e) an…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SATARA, INCOME TAX OFFICE SATARA vs. NANDKUMAR DATTATRAY KHOT, DAHIWADI MAN

In the result, Cross Objection appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1562/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1562/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, V Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Ward-3, Satara S Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan: Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, V The Income Tax Officer, Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, S Ward-3, Satara. Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan:Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Ar Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor – (Dr)(Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2