Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

469 ITR 46Supreme Court of India2024#72 most cited

What is Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal authority for?

The legal fiction created by the Ashish Agarwal judgment stops the limitation clock for Section 148 notices from the date of the deemed notice. Orders issued without proper jurisdiction, or those inconsistent with statutory prescriptions, are a nullity, and there can be no waiver of such fundamental jurisdictional requirements.

713

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal · Section 148 notice limitation · Ashish Agarwal legal fiction · TOLA applicability · reassessment jurisdiction · time-barred notice · order without jurisdiction · Section 149 · Section 148A

Also reported as

167 Taxmann.com 70301 Taxmann 238

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 149Section 144BSection 250Section 144
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 149a(c)section 149a(d)section 149asection 151(i)section 149(1)(a)section 3(1)section 148a(a)section 148 noticesection 151(ii)section 149(1)section 149(1)(b)order under section 148a(d)

Judgments citing Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

Javitri Devi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(5), Delhi

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

ITA 6619/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2016-17 Javitri Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-7, Nehru Enclave, Ward 30(5), Kalkaji New Delhi New Delhi – 110 019 (Pan: Aafpd2491M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 13Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.YR. : 2016-17 JAVITRI DEVI, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, R-7, NEHRU ENCLAVE, WARD 30(5), KALKAJI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 019 (PAN: AAFPD2491M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. S.C. Garg, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 24.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.03.2026 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 21/8/2025 of th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi, Jhandewalan vs. Krska Capital Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 4666/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…tion 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 both dt. 29-07-2022 were invalid and bad in law being time barred as per the provisions of section 149 of the Act as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 SC. Accordingly the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed. (ii) Because on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not annulling the reassessment as order under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 both dt. 29-07-2022 for assessment year 2016-17 were beyond the period of three years approval was required to be obtained as…

Shailesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3641/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Amitabh Shuklashailesh Kumar Vs Acit W-82/1, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Central Circle-27 Farms, New Delhi Jhandewalan, New Delhi Pan: Afppk1645B (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. P. Mall, Adv Respondent By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, (‘Ld. Cit (A)’ For Short), New Delhi Dated 28/03/2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Income Of Rs. 18,18,380/-. An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 147 Of The Act On 30/05/2023 By Computing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 72,84,905/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 18,18,380/-. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 30/05/2023, Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 28/03/2025, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

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

…extracted as under: "4. The Learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. 7 Shailesh Kumar Vs. ACIT V. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions)…

Gopi Kishan Makharia, Bhiwani vs. ITO-1, Bhiwani

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

ITA 8727/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18 Gopi Kishan Makharia, Vs Ito-1, Shree Saraswati Spinning Mills, Bhiwani, Birla Colony, Tosham Road, Haryana. Bhiwani, Haryana. Pan: Abhpm8102F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gopi Kishan Makharia, Vs ITO-1, Shree Saraswati Spinning Mills, Bhiwani, Birla Colony, Tosham Road, Haryana. Bhiwani, Haryana. PAN: ABHPM8102F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.S. Nagar, CA Revenue by : Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.10.2025 issued by t…

Sarit Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6662/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the NFAC who vide order dated 28-08-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being, aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 3

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “B”NEWDELHI BEFORESHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR HUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarit Gupta (HUF) Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-43(6) CP-101 Maurya Enclave Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi- 110088 PAN No. AATHS9970E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Amarbir Singh Walia, Adv, Shri Manish Mittal, Adv, Shri Aman Gupta, CA. Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.02.2026 Date of 13.03.2026 pronouncement ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR JM: The assessee preferred the appeal, challenging the order dated 28-…

Bmr Overseas Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2), C.R. Building Delhi 110002, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6646/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bmr Overseas Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(2), Zb-33/487, Plot No. 4 & 5, C.R. Building, Dilshad Garde New Delhi Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 095 [Pan No. Aafcb8509D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 157ASection 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 BMR OVERSEAS LIMITED, Vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), ZB-33/487, PLOT NO. 4 & 5, C.R. BUILDING, DILSHAD GARDE NEW DELHI INDUSTRIAL AREA, SHAHDARA, DELHI – 110 095 [PAN No. AAFCB8509D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CA & Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr. Date of hearing: 25/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assess…

Shiv Extrusion, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 250

…148 of the act under TOLA) Accordingly, the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued on or before 22.06.2022. The notice dated 29.07.2022, issued beyond the surviving limitation without jurisdiction, in view of the ratio in Rajeev Bansal, ITR (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) Shiv Extrusion vs. ITO 10. The above issue is coverd in favor of assesee by the judgement of Guj. High Court in case of Dilipbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & ANR. The order of the High Court runs as under: “In the facts of the case, the to respondent Assessing Officer has provided information pursuant the d…

DCIT Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Shree Nakoda Texfab Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2232/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

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

…t in the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as in law, the proceedings initiated u/s 147 by AO were illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction in view of the notice u/s 148 barred by limitation of time as per decision in case of UOI v Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46) (SC) condition laid down under the proviso to section 148 was not fulfilled. 6. We have heard rival submissions at length and perused the materials available on record including Rule 27 Application filed by the assessee challenging the validity of issuance of 148 notice during the extended time period as per Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation o…

Kalpana Sanjay Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-41(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 9047/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings raising, inter alia, the following grounds: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-1, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 1Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

…Section 151(ii) of the Act is the Specified Authority for seeking necessary approval. 7. In our view, the above issue is no longer res-integra and stands settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03/10/2024]. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, while dealing with the issue of approval from specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made the following observations: “74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as fo…

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 9046/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

…tion 151(ii) of the Act is the Specified Authority for seeking necessary approval. 7. In our view, the above issue is no longer res-integra and stands settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03/10/2024]. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, while dealing with the issue of approval from specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made the following observations: “74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as fo…

Senthilkumar Thangaraj, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8221/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu Gandhi
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Senthilkumar Thangaraj ITO-WARD 42(3)(3), Mumbai 204, B-Wing, Eshwari Co-op Society, Room No. 610, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Rajendra Prasad Nagar, 60 feet Road, 41 to C-43, G-Block, BKC, Bandra Vs. Matunga Labour Camp, Mumbai (East), Mumbai-400051 400019. PAN/GIR No. ALNPT1800D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi : Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat – Sr. AR Respondent by Date of Hearing : 05/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06 /03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of…

Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3597/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardeepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Income Tax Officer, C/O Bharat Kumar, 317, Ward 42(1)(2), Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 004 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ajupb 7841H Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Before We Proceed To Decide The Substantive Issue Arising For Consideration, It Is Necessary To Provide A Brief Factual Background. This Appeal Was Earlier Disposed Of By The Coordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 12.12.2024. Subsequently, Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification/Recall Of The Appellate Order On The Ground That While Deciding The Appeal, The Bench Had Failed To Decide Ground No. 2.A & 2.B. While Deciding The Miscellaneous Application, The Bench Having Found Merit In The Submissions Of Assessee, Recalled The Order For The Limited Purpose Of Deciding Ground No. 2.A & 2.B Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal. This Is How The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

…otice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.07.2022. 5. Drawing our attention to the ratio laid down in the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), learned counsel 3 Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir vs. ITO submitted, after excluding the period, which is available to the Assessing Officer in terms with these decisions the order u/s. 148A(d) as also the notice u/s. 148 of the Act should have been issued on or before 19.06.2022. Whereas, the AO has passed the order u/s. 148A(d) and issued the notice…

Pakarahalli Narayanappa Srinivasgowda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1373/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 148Section 250Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pakarahalli Narayanappa Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Srinivasgowda, Ward – 6(3)(1), B 2 B Block, 6th B Cross, Bangalore. New Town Yelahanka, Bangalore – 560 064. PAN – BIOPS 6057 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directe…

Jignesh Natverlal Patel (Represnted by Late Natverlal Nanubhai Patel), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6769/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawaljignesh Natverlal Patel Vs Ito Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai (Represented By Late Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) Mumbai-400012 401 Adarsh Building, Rto Four Bunglows, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan:Aaapp1767B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende (Sr DR)
Section 139(1)Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jignesh Natverlal Patel vs ITO Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai (Represented By Late Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) Mumbai-400012 401 Adarsh Building, RTO Four Bunglows, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 PAN:AAAPP1767B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Aditya Ramchandran, Respondent by : Shri Sushil B. Shende (Sr DR) Date of hearing : 10/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 05/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the asse…

Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

…ion & Ors. Vs. ACIT in W.P.No.8848 of 2023, dated 11.09.2025. As observed by us hereinabove, the Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid order had after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 340 CTR 865 (SC), quashed the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 10.04.2023 for the A.Y. 2016- 17 by treating the same as barred by limitation as per the “first proviso” to section 149(1)(b) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the Hon’ble High Court, as under:- “53. The position of law whic…

Ramachandran Meenakshi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 3182/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Mr.R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. M.D.Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं सु"ी प"ावती एस, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3182/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 v. Ramachandran Meenakshi, The ITO, M.No.5/24, Ambedkar Nagar, Non Corporate Ward-22 (1), Chitlapakkam, Tambaram. Jagajevanram Street, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 064. [PAN: DLGPM 5217 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.R. Venkata Raman, C.A, ""यथ" क"…

Shri Radha Krishna Ispat Private Limited, Kalunga vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT Circle Rourkela, Rourkela

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/CTK/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiashri Radha Krishna Ispat Private A.C.I.T., Limited, Circle Rourkela, Vs. Plot No. 19-P, Kalunga, Gaibhanga, Rourkela. Sundergarh, Odisha-770031, Rourkela. Pan No. Aaics 5551 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)

…issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 30/06/2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16. Inviting our attention to para No. 19(f) of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), the ld. AR submitted that the revenue had made a categorical concession before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for the A.Y. 2 Shri Radha Krishna Ispat P Ld. Vs ACIT 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01st April, 2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall within the time permitted for completion of reassessment proceeding under…

Sri Bannari Amman Fresh Fruit, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward - 15(1), Chennai, Tamil Nadu

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3702/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3702/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. V. Tharish, CAFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं सु"ी पदमावती यस, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3702/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Bannari Amman Fresh Fruit, The Income Tax Officer, No.55/66, MG Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-15(1), Besant Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Chennai – 600090. PAN: ADDFS 1100R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. V. Tharish, CA ()थ" की ओर से /Respondent by : Dr. M.D. Vij…

Prakash Jain, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleprakash Jain Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate Tax, Circle-2 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Udaipur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Acepj 5236 H Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The“Nfac/Cit(A)”] Dated 29/08/2025 With Respect To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Id. Counsel For The Assessee Vehemently Submitted That The Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Union Of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal 167 Taxmann.Com 70. The Ar Briefly Narrated The Facts Of The Case That Notice U/S 148 Of The Income-Tax Act

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…48). 3. Thus, the sole issue of contention is whether the subsequent notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 25.07.2022 is to be treated as legal or not in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46. The Id. counsel for the assessee contended that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 would have to be in compliant with the new regime of reassessment as explained by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 167 taxmann.com 70. The Ld. AR argued that fresh notice u/s 148 of 3 Asst. Year: 2017-18 the Act could have been issu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2551/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra ChoudhuryFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153CSection 69C

…f the Act, was issued u/s 30.07.2022. We find that {Taxation and Other Laws [Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions] Act} TOLA is not applicable. In the present case as has been admitted in the case of Union of India and other Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), dated 03.10.2024. Therefore, the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022, is barred by limitation and so is the assessment framed consequently u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act. We note that as per the Section 149(1) of the Act, the time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 before 01.04.2021, would be as per the old prov…