How many judgments cite Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal?

524 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1), spanning 2022 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 148A, Section 151, Section 149, Section 144B.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

444 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2022#126 most cited

What is Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal authority for?

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

524

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal · Section 148 notice validity · reassessment notices after April 1 2021 · amended reassessment provisions · Section 148A(b) conversion · Article 142 directions · unamended Section 148 · reopening assessment procedure · Section 148A(d) order · time limit for reassessment

Also reported as

138 Taxmann.com 642022 SCC OnLine SC 543286 Taxmann 1831 SCC 617

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 147 Section 148A Section 151 Section 149 Section 144B Section 143(3)Section 250

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 149a(c)section 149a(d)section 148a(c)section 149a section 151(i)section 148 notice section 149(1)(a)section 148a(a)section 3(1)section 151(ii)order under section 148a(d)section 149(1)

Judgments citing Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2357/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 2791/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2357/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) & I.T.A. No. 2355/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aptivaa Middle Ease FZE Vs. Deputy C/o Apativaa Consulting Commissioner of Solutions Private Limited, Income-tax, 91, Springboard, 74 Circle 1(1) (2), Techno Park, 74/II, Cross International Rd. C, opp. Gate No. 2, Taxation, Mumbai M.I.D.C., Seepz, Andheri East, Mumbai. PAN: AAWCA5297L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appel…

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2355/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

Mohd.Salim Abdul Hakim Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 26(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6848/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/w Shri OmFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

…as escaped assessment and accordingly vide notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act the AO reopened the assessment. Subsequently pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agrawal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) the notice dated 30.06.2021 was treated as notice under section 148A of the Act. The AO then issued a notice under section 148A(b) on 28.05.2022 giving 15 days time to the assessee to file the necessary response as to why the reassessment proceeding should not be initiated in assessee's case. The assessee did not respond to notice under sectio…

Ra Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 2632/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali ParekhFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…aforesaid notice was issued after the expiry of 3 years but before the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Subsequently, in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04/05/2022] communication dated 24/05/2022, was sent to the Assessee intimating the Assessee that the aforesaid notice issued section 148 of the Act (under old regime) would be treated as the show cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (under new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 wef 01/04/2021). The Assessing Off…

Dhanushkodi Harideertham, Pudukottai vs. ITO, Intl Taxnl Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 214/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री जगदीश, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.214/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dhanushkodi Harideertham, 15, Sivanandapuram First Street, Machuvadi, Pudukottai 622 001. [PAN:AFLPH1801E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Chennai 600 006. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N.V. K…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Vinay Agrawal, Mahasamund

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 30/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…the rights and interests of the assessees; and (iii) the Central Government could not exercise its delegated authority to re-activate the pre-existing law. 20. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agrawal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), to resolve the multi-facet controversies that had cropped up inter-se the assessees and the department, had held, that it was in complete agreement with the view taken by the various High Courts in holding that the benefit of the new provisions shall be made available even in respect of proceedings relating to the past assessment years, provi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Vinay Agrawal, Mahasamund

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 29/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Cle Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6270/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6270/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) CLE Private Limited DCIT, Central Circle- 3(4), Mumbai 7th Floor, Raheja Point I, Vs. Vakola, Santacruz(E), Mumbai- 400055. PAN: AACCR 7266 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra Sanghvi Revenue by : Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR & Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2025 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: Both these appeals filed by th…

Cle Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6269/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Kamlesh Kukreja, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

ITA 379/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 379/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

…the rights and interests of the assessees; and (iii) the Central Government could not exercise its delegated authority to re-activate the pre- existing law. 20. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashish Agrawal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), to resolve the multi-facet controversies that had cropped up inter-se the assessees and the department, had held, that it was in complete agreement with the view taken by the various High Courts in holding that the benefit of the new provisions shall be made available even in respect of proceedings relating to the past assessment years, provi…

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1224/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Nirmal Kumar Agrawal DCIT, Vs. 20, Khanda Than Manak Chowk Circle-04, Jaipur-302001 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABIPA 1098 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs.…

Nishchint Bagga, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Neelam Jain, 374, Veer Apartment, Ward-36(1), Sector-103, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajppj0908E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

…after 31.03.2021 but under the unamended provisions relating to the re-assessment of income that had escaped assessment. 4. The Revenue appealed the decisions rendered by various High Courts to the Supreme Court of India. In Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543 - which was one of such appeals arising from the decision of the Allahabad High Court - the Supreme Court delivered its decision on 04.05.2022, whereby it concurred with the view that the amended provisions which came into force after 31.03.2021 would be applicable to notices issued thereafter. However, the Supreme Court also issued ce…

Abdul Saeed Issak Mulla, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153Section 274Section 69A

…Act before issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act in respect of those cases, where the revenue has invoked the provisions of section 148A as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. 5 Abdul Saeed Issak Mulla Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617. The relevant para 73 to 81 of Rajeev Bansal (Supra) are reproduced as under: “73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under section 148. The purpose behind this…

Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sakshi Ratnesh V. INT Tax Ward 3(1)(1) Chand Jain r/o Room No. 1630, 902/903 A Kalinga 16th Floor, Tower, Air India Building, Nirmal Nagar, Nariman Point, Link Road, Mumbai-400021. Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080. 2) 622, Nirmal Corporate Center, Nirmal Lifestyle, LBS Marg, Mulund(West), Mumbai-400080. PAN/GIR No. AKFPJ6419B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue by Shri. Krishna Kumar Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28/01/2025 Date of Pronouncemen…

Totalenergies Marketing Services, France vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3405/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153Section 274Section 69A

Rajuri Steels & Tmt Bars Pvt.Ltd, Jalna vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 2, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2200/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri B.D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…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.2200/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajuri Steels & TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd., Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Plot No. F-16-17 and Gut No. 49, Aurangabad 51 & 52, MIDC Phase-II, Daregaon, Vs. Jalna-400009 PAN : AAICS2970E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.D. Bhide Department by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 23-01-2025 Date of 28-01-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORD…

Nkg Infrastructure Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-27, Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1896/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Rajeev Malik, Vs Acit, Central, 26/28, East Patel Nagar, International Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi – 110 008. New Delhi. Pan: Agbpm6372N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2024 Passed By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation-2(2)(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Ay 2016-17. 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That Amongst Other Grounds On Merits, The Assessee Has Raised Ground No.2 As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajeev Malik, Vs ACIT, Central, 26/28, East Patel Nagar, International Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi – 110 008. New Delhi. PAN: AGBPM6372N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the final assessment order da…

M/S. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5495/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumararvind Bansal, Vs. Ito, 15, Second Floor, Sainik Ward-44(1), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpb8185E

For Appellant: Sr. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149ASection 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Arvind Bansal, Vs. ITO, 15, Second Floor, Sainik Ward-44(1), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AARPB8185E Assessee by : Sr. Pranshu Singhal, CA Ms Mansi Jain, CA Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 25/07/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.5495/Del/2024 for AY 2013-14, arise out of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. N…

M/S. Rana Iron & Power Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 155/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 154 to 156/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16 to 2017-18) Aseem Sehgal, Vs. ITO, Flat No. 227, C, Mayur Ward-60(1), Vihar, Phase-1, East Delhi Delhi-110091 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: CJQPS9531K Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Ayush Garg, CA Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/072025 Date of pronouncement 30/07/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 154 to 156/Del/2025 for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, arise out…

Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 405/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri P.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri A. Sreenivasa Rao, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 92C

…rits raised during the appellate proceedings. The main contention of the ld. CIT(A) in not agreeing with the contention of the assessee was based on the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agrawal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) in which it is held that the notices were issued under the old law for reopening the assessment are revived and are deemed to be notices under new law. The court further held that the notices issued under the old provisions were to be considered as show cause notices u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Therefore relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme…