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 366,005 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hsbc Electronic Data Processing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

…आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1613/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) M/s. HSBC Electronic Data Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Processing India Pvt. Ltd., Range-2, Hyderabad. Hyderabad-500 081 PAN: AAACH8235M (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1632/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. HSBC Electronic Data Vs. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Processing India Pvt. Ltd.,…

M/S Venkateswar Medicare Pvt. Ltd., ITO, Ward-2(1) vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1417/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…new substituted regime to test the validity of a notice under old Section 148 of the Act issued on or after 01.04.2021, admittedly under the new regime, in view of the one-time leeway granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal CIT Vs Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) - validity of such notice under the new/substituted regime has to necessarily be tested under the provisions of the new/substituted regime. v. If the provisions of the old regime of Section 148 of Act (including TOLA) are read into/applied to the new regime applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021, it would necessarily result in deferring the implementati…

M/S Venkateswar Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1416/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

Motilal Lachhmandas Rijhwani, Thane vs. ITO, WD-2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM I.T.A. No. 2256/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Motilal Lachhmandas Rijhwani ITO, Ward-2(2), Flat No. 401, Kalakunj Apartment, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, GoI Maidan, Near Nirankari Hall, Vs. Khadapkada, Kalyan (West), Ulhasnagar, Thane-421002. Thane-421301. PAN : AEVPR3301Q Assessee) : Respondent) Assessee/Appellant by : Shri Bhadresh Doshi, CA Revenue/Respondent by : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR : 16.07.2024 Date of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by…

Hyundai Transys Inc, Republic of Korea vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…ment by the Finance Act, 2021). The action of the AO was to be deemed to have been issued to assessee u/s.148A of the Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 (as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UoI v. Ashish Agarwal reported in [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) dated 04.05.2022). The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) having ordered that all the notices issued by AO under the erstwhile Sec.148 of the Act to be treated as issued u/s.148A of the substituted Finance Act, 2021, also gave liberty to the assessee to raise all defense available to the assessee u/s.149 of the Act, and/or which may…

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(International Tax) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2751/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2751/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Shri Nishit Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2751/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 2(1)(2) Atlimus, 2101 21st Floor Pandurang Budhkar Marg Worli Mumbai - 400018 [PAN: AAICA3008P] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Anish Thacker & Shri Nishit Shah, A/R Revenue by: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hea…

Nisha Thomas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-Drp-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2764/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A. No. 2764/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Nisha Thomas CIT(A) DRP-2, Room No. 1, 28th Floor, Flat No. 203, A-10, Tejasvi Apartment, Saibaba Nagar, World Trade Centre-1, Vs. Mira Road (East), Cuffe Parade, Maharashtra-401107. Mumbai-400005. PAN : AKCPT1993K Assessee) : Respondent) Assessee/Appellant by : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, CA Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR : 08.07.2024 Date of Hearing : 15.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the as…

Purushottam Dayal Tulshyan, Sambalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.50/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Purushottam Dayal Tulshyan, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Khetrajpur, Balmukund Dora Lane, Sambalpur-768003 Pan No. :Aakpt 1711 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Passed U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 18.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2015. Thereafter The Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2021 & The Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 28.03.2022. Thereafter The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Found The Said Order Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Revised The Said Order Wherein He Has Enhanced The Income Of The Assessee By Rs.4,02,90,000/- On Account Of Addition U/S.68 Of The Act. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Present Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 68

…ecision in the case of Nutan Bhusan Jena vs Pr. CIT in W.P.(C) No.11181 of 2022 order dated 6.5.2022, wherein, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa had following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal, 444 ITR 1(SC) has held as follows: “This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. The Opposite Parties-Department referred to section 3(1) of the taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and the fact that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of assailing the order of the assessment and order of the appellate authori…

Manas Ranjan Pattanayak, Chadragiri vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack08 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Manas Ranjan Pattanayak, Manas Ranjan Pattanayak, Vs. Assessing Officer, National Assessing Officer, National At/Po: Chadragiri, Mohana, At/Po: Chadragiri, Mohana, Faceless Faceless Assessment Assessment Gajapati. Centre, New Delhi Centre, New Delhi Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Bhzpp 5495 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra & Shesadeb Shesadeba Das, Advs Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra and ShesadebFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 148Section 3(1)

…visions) Act, 2020 and the fact that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of assailing the order of the assessment and order of the appellate authority. 3. As regards the first issue, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, 444 ITR 1(SC) is a complete answer. This has been taken note of by this Court in its order dated 6th May, 2022 in W.P.(C) No.11181 of 2022 (Nutan Bhusan Jena vs The pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 4. Considering that, the assessment year is 2013-14 and the impugned notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was issued on 28th March, 2021 for the reasons sta…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA ""यथ" क"…

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

…nt by the Finance Act, 2021) which action of the AO was to be deemed to have been issued to assessee u/s.148A of the Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 (as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UoI v. Ashish Agarwal reported in [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) dated 04.05.2022). The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) having ordered that all the notices issued by AO under the erstwhile Sec.148 of the Act to be treated as issued u/s.148A of the substituted Finance Act, 2021, also gave liberty to the assessee to raise all defense available to the assessee u/s.149 of the Act, and/or which m…

DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3600/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

…of the paper-book as well as the Instruction Number 1/2022, dated 11/05/2022, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for implementation of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 04/05/2022 in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Aggarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)[04-05- 2022]. 11. Per contra, it was the contention of the Revenue that the notice dated, 31/03/2021, is valid in the eyes of law as the same contains the name and designation of the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid notice meets the requirement of the provisions contained in Section 148 of the Act as in effect on the date of issuance of notice…

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3596/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3476/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3475/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

…of the paper-book as well as the Instruction Number 1/2022, dated 11/05/2022, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for implementation of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 04/05/2022 in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Aggarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)[04-05- 2022]. Per contra, it was the contention of the Revenue that the notice dated, 31/03/2021, is valid in the eyes of law as the same contains the name and designation of the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid notice meets the requirement of the provisions contained in Section 148 of the Act as in effect on the date of issuance of notice, i…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Parinee Housing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3408/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 185

…evant facts as noted above. In this case, a notice u/s.148 was issued under old provision even though it was issued after 01/04/2021, i.e., on 28/06/2021. However, in pursuance of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal reported in 441 ITR 1 and also as per the CBDT instructions, a fresh notice u/s.148 was issued to the assessee on 22/07/2022. Since the reopening of the assessment has been done post amendment by the Finance Act 2021, therefore, in accordance with the first proviso to Section 148 approval of specified authority had to be obtained before the notice u/s.148 is issued. The…

Parinee Housing Private Limited, Vile Parle West vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - Cental Circle 2(4), Mumbai, New Marine Lines, Churchgate

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

ITA 2884/MUM/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 185

Kalyanasundaram Bharath Hari, Chittlapakkam, Chennai vs. ITO, Int. Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 307/CHNY/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram The Income Tax Officer, Bharath Hari, Vs. International Taxation Ward Flat No.108, Parsn Aahana, 1(1), Mambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Chittlapakkam, Chennai – 600 126. PAN: AACPB 6441N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advoca…

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…ed notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 is time barred. Consequently, the impugned notice is quashed.” Further, your humble appellant would like to bring to your kind attention that as per judgement in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal [[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)], Hon’ble supreme court held that w.e.f. 01/04/2021 provisions of section 148A mandatorily required to be followed. To validate notices issued u/s 148 by the revenue in between 01/04/2021 to 30/06/2021 without following procedure of section 148A, by such judgement following directions made: “(i) The respective section 148 notices issued to the…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -3 vs. Pawansut Holding Ltd

ITA/472/2023HC Delhi22 Aug 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…of unnecessary details and since it would appear that the original action, though initiated after 01 April 2021 had followed the statutory procedure which prevailed prior thereto, the principles laid 1 AY 2 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7286 3 Act 4 SCN 5 (2023) 1 SCC 617 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2024 at 11:42:53 down in Ashish Aggarwal came be to attracted and consequently, the respondents were liable to treat the original notice u…