Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

ACIT22(1), Mumbai vs. Spr Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia, ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 6562/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, 22(1) Vs. SPR ASSOCIATES 107 108 Anand Estate NM Joshi Marg Chinchpokli West Mumbai - 400011 [PAN: AAVFS7300J] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 53/Mum/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 SPR ASSOCIATES Vs. DCIT, 22(1) 107 108 Anand Estate NM Joshi Marg Chinchpokli West Mumbai - 400011 [PAN: AAVFS7300J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Mitali Parekh, Adv. Revenue by Shri Dr. Raghvendra P. Chambolkar, Sr. DR Date of…

Adarsh Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…u/s 148 issued under the old regime was dated 30/06/2021, to reopen the assessment. Thereafter, the said notice was treated as a deemed notice as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal, reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1. The Revenue after following the procedure as per the new regime u/s 148A issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29/07/2022, which was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–20, Mumbai. The Ld.AR submitted that the notice issued under section 148A(b) and the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act are beyond three years. 6 I.T.A. No. 7945/M…

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavik Prafulchandra Vora, Gujrat

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

…u/s 148 issued under the old regime was dated 29/06/2021, to reopen the assessment. Thereafter, the said notice was treated as a deemed notice as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal, reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1. The Revenue after following the procedure as per the new regime u/s 148A issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30/07/2022, which was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax–3, Ahmedabad, wherein the reasons recorded states that income chargeable to tax amounting to ₹10,25,756/- had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. Th…

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Pranavkumar Prafulchandra Vora, Gujrat

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

…u/s 148 issued under the old regime was dated 28/06/2021, to reopen the assessment. Thereafter, the said notice was treated as a deemed notice as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal, reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1. The Revenue after following the procedure as per the new regime u/s 148A issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28/07/2022, which was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax–3, Ahmedabad, wherein the reasons recorded states that income chargeable to tax amounting to ₹37,76,422/- had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. Th…

Dattatray Vithoba Sawant, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

…ginal notice u/s 148 issued under the old regime was dated 15/04/2021 to reopen the assessment. Thereafter, the said notice was treated as a deemed notice as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agrawal reported in [2022] 444 ITR 1. The Revenue 4 I.T.A. No. 6081/Mum/2025 after following the procedure as per the new regime u/s 148A issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 06/07/2022, which was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–17, Mumbai, wherein the reasons recorded states that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.2,58,383/- had escaped assessment for the y…

Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

…u/s 148 issued under the old regime was dated 05/05/2021, to reopen the assessment. Thereafter, the said notice was treated as a deemed notice as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal, reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1. The Revenue after following the procedure as per the new regime 9 I.T.A. No. 7421/Mum/2025 u/s 148A issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27/05/2022, which was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–19, Mumbai, wherein the reasons recorded states that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.28,86,000/- had escaped assessment for the…

Vijay Kumar Chawla, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Kalyan

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpia, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

…s stage. 4. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessment order was passed on 22.03.2022, whereas the judgments relied by the Ld AR, directing to follow the amended provisions of section 148A, as per decision in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) by the Hon'ble Apex Court was passed on 04.05.2022, therefore the ld. AO has no occasion or benefit of such order to follow the directions accorded therein. Also, the guidelines issued by CBDT in May 2021 in this respect were not available with the ld. AO at the time when assessment was completed. It is further submitted by ld. DR that as the…

Vijay Kumar Chawla, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Kalyan

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpia, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

…stage. 4. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessment order was passed on 22.03.2022, whereas the judgments relied by the Ld AR, directing to follow the amended provisions of section 148A, as per decision in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) by the Hon’ble Apex Court was passed on 04.05.2022, therefore the ld. AO has no occasion or benefit of such order to follow the directions accorded therein. Also, the guidelines issued by CBDT in May 2021 in this respect were not available with the ld. AO at the ITA No.7946, 7947-7948/M/2025/Mum/2025 Vijay Kumar Chawla time when assessment w…

Vijay Kumar Chawla, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Kalyan

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpia, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

…stage. 4. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessment order was passed on 22.03.2022, whereas the judgments relied by the Ld AR, directing to follow the amended provisions of section 148A, as per decision in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) by the Hon’ble Apex Court was passed on 04.05.2022, therefore the ld. AO has no occasion or benefit of such order to follow the directions accorded therein. Also, the guidelines issued by CBDT in May 2021 in this respect were not available with the ld. AO at the ITA No.7946, 7947-7948/M/2025/Mum/2025 Vijay Kumar Chawla time when assessment w…

Impressive Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…ion i.e., A.Y.2014-15 was reopened vide notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was undisputedly issued under the old regime i.e., under the law which was repealed by Finance Act, 2021. 5. In UOI V/S Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that notices of the present nature were deemed to be a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This was by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision issued certain directions to be followed by the Assessing Officer by modifying the orders various…

Impressive Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…ion i.e., A.Y.2014-15 was reopened vide notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was undisputedly issued under the old regime i.e., under the law which was repealed by Finance Act, 2021. 5. In UOI V/S Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that notices of the present nature were deemed to be a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This was by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision issued certain directions to be followed by the Assessing Officer by modifying the orders various…

Impressive Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(1)(1), Mumbai

…ion i.e., A.Y.2014-15 was reopened vide notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was undisputedly issued under the old regime i.e., under the law which was repealed by Finance Act, 2021. 5. In UOI V/S Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that notices of the present nature were deemed to be a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This was by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision issued certain directions to be followed by the Assessing Officer by modifying the orders various…

Devanshi Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardevanshi Sharma Ito, Ward 34(1)(1) 216, 2Nd Floor, Kautaliya Bhawan, Sagar Jyoti, Plot No. 18, Vs. 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Cmvpk 6007 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.10.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Legal Issue, Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) As Also The Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act. Since, The Aforesaid Issue Raised By The Assessee Is A Purely Legal & Jurisdictional Issue Going To The Root Of The Matter & Affecting The Validity Of The Proceedings Initiated U/S. 147 Of The Act, We Are Inclined To Address The Issue At The Very Outset.

…s beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [[2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)/[2022] 286 Taxman 183 (SC)/[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.], after April 1, 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under section 151 of the new regime. The effect of section 151 of the new regime is thus: (i) If income escaping assessment is less than rupees fifty lakhs : (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years aft…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 5(3), Mumbai vs. Unify Texturisers Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit Central Circle-5(3), Vs Unify Texturisers Private Limited Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Astral Centre, Nm Joshi Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Marg, Opp. Chinchpokli Railway Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Station, Mumbai-400011 Mumbai 400051 Pan: Aaacu8565F Appellant Respondent C.O. No.241/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5055/Mum/2025 A.Y. :2017-18)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT Central Circle-5(3), vs Unify Texturisers Private Limited Mumbai 3rd Floor, Astral Centre, NM Joshi Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Marg, Opp. Chinchpokli Railway Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Station, Mumbai-400011 Mumbai 400051 PAN: AAACU8565F APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. No.241/Mum/2025 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.5055/Mum/2025 A.Y. :2017-18) Unify Texturisers Private vs DCIT Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai Limited Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla 3rd Floor, Astral Centre, NM…