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 366,470 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

Saktinagar Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward 41(1), Nadia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Saktinagar Samabay Krishi Income Tax Officer, Unnayan Samity Ltd. Ward 41(1), Nadia C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Income Tax Officer, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Krishnanagar, 12/13, Ananta Hari Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Mitra Road, Nediar Para, P.O & Street, Kolkata-700001, P.S. Krishnanagar, Dist. Nadia, West Bengal Pin-741101, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaoas5837L Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Saktinagar Samabay Krishi Income Tax officer, Unnayan Samity Ltd. Ward 41(1), Nadia C/o S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Income Tax officer, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2 nd Krishnanagar, 12/13, Ananta hari Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off hare Mitra Road, nediar Para, P.O & Street, Kolkata-700001, P.S. Krishnanagar, Dist. Nadia, West Bengal PIN-741101, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAOAS5837L Assessee by : Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 28.08.2025 Dat…

ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Alex Tradecom Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2198/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [Pan: Aajca6146P] Appearances By: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 05.08.2024 & 26.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue With Delays Of 38 Days. The Revenue Has Filed Separate Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid And

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [PAN: AAJCA6146P] Appearances by: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, CA, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of conc…

ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata vs. Alex Tradecom Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2197/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [Pan: Aajca6146P] Appearances By: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 05.08.2024 & 26.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue With Delays Of 38 Days. The Revenue Has Filed Separate Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid And

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [PAN: AAJCA6146P] Appearances by: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, CA, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of conc…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, Delhi vs. Divyansh Infracon Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 543/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT- DR
Section 148Section 149Section 153ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 543/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2012-13] ITA No. 538/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Divyansh Infracon Pvt Ltd Central Circle-15 House No. 25, First Floor New Delhi Pocket 2, Jasola, Delhi PAN – AADCD 6031 G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Adv Shri Rajiv Kumar, Adv Department By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- Both the abov…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, Delhi vs. Divyansh Infracon Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 538/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT- DR
Section 148Section 149Section 153ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 543/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2012-13] ITA No. 538/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2013-14] The Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Divyansh Infracon Pvt Ltd Central Circle-15 House No. 25, First Floor New Delhi Pocket 2, Jasola, Delhi PAN – AADCD 6031 G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Adv Shri Rajiv Kumar, Adv Department By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- Both the abov…

Sahdev Gupta, New Delhi vs. Faceless Assessment, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 4234/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4234/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Sahdev Gupta, Faceless Assessment, 6/855, Main Bazar, Mehrauli, Vs. New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Acspg7739G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

…llant, this Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to direct the Appellant to submit a date chart summarizing the sequence of events premised on the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal: 444 ITR 1 and Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal: 469 ITR 46 and their applicability to the present case of the Appellant. 3 SEHDEV GUPTA 3. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted as under: Date Events & Particulars 30.06.2021 Notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2013- 14 (as per erstwhile reassessment provisions) 04.05.2022 Judgment of the SC in Ashish Agarwal (supra) [Notices u/s 148 of the unamended…

Travelport Global Distribution System Bv, Netherland vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Travelport Global Distribution Vs Assistant Commissioner Of System Bv, Taurusavenue Income Tax, Circle 33A-2132 Ls, Po Box 3064- International Taxation 1(3)(1) 2130Kb, Hoofddrop, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, Netherland New Delhi Pan: Aaccg2258D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Agarwal, Adv, Sh. Vibha Bansal, Ca & Sh. Arihant Jain, Ca Revenue By Sh. Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 4Section 44C

…upreme Court in Union of India &Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra). The Supreme Court also granted further time to provide the material, which was required to accompany such notice. As explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, the period from the date of the issuance of the notice till 04.05.2022, the date on which the Supreme Court had rendered the decision in Union of India &Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), is required to be excluded. Additionally, the time provided till the date of providing the material, which should have accompanied a notice under Sect…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Adajan vs. Shivlal Shamjibhai Ponkia, City Light Road, Surat

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

ITA 817/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 &2 - Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…al objection. “Notice issued u/s 148 as well as consequential reassessment order passed u/s 147, for A.Y. 2015-16, are bad in law on account of being time barred, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and the Hon'ble jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. ACIT- SCA No. 18099 of 2022.” 6.1. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal grounds taken by the assessee in respect of reopening of the case for the reason that the quantum addition made by the Assessing Office…

Dineshbhai Mulachandabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1371/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1371/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dineshbhai Mulachandabhai Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ Patel Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Patidar Faliyu, Bhestan Gam, Gate, Surat-395 001 Choryasi, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bispp 4863 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…ther issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was valid nor the consequential reassessment order u/s 147 is sustainable. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) held that reopening notice under section 148 for AY 2013-14 is not valid, if escaped income is less than Rs.50,00,000/-. The Ld. AR, therefore, submitted that the ITA No.1371/Srt/2024 A.Y 13-14 Dineshbhai M Patel action of the AO in reopening is not valid. Accordingly, the subsequent order passed u/s 147 of the Act by the AO is also void ab…

Dipak Chhaganlal Naik L/H Amitaben Dipak Naik, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1118/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1118/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dipak Chhaganlal Naik Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ L/H Amitaben Dipak Naik Surat, Room No. 627, Aaykar Vs. 44, China Gate-2, B/Hgayatri Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 Mandir, Althan S.O, Althan, 001 Surat- 395 017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhn 5872 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 2(47)Section 250Section 50CSection 80C

…) erred in not holding that notice u/s.148 issued on 30.06.2021/27.07.2022 is barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the time limit surviving under the Income tax Act r.w. TOLA as well as Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in not holding the notice and proceedings under provisions of section 148 of the Act as invalid and bad in law without appreciating the fact that……… (i) Notice and proceedings carried out u/s.148 are in utter violation of the prescribed procedure of facel…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel, Surat

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

ITA 1020/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1020/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel बनाम/ Surat, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Choryasi, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 005 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ctopp 7620 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.9/Srt/2025 (A/O Ita No.1020/Srt/2024/ (Ay 2018-19) Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Surat, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, Vs. Choryasi, Surat-395 005 Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ctopp 7620 J (""यथ"/Respondent) (Co-Objector)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 48

…d and we proceed to decide the case on merit. 6. At the outset, Ld. AR of the appellant submitted that the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act was invalid in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 44 ITR 1 (SC) and decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Saroj Predhiman Kaw vs. DCIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 76 (Guj). The appellant submitted a detailed calculation of the surviving period for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act which is reproduced below for ready reference: SC-e…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. Bhanubhai Ranchhodbhai Asodaria, Surat

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

ITA 1003/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 &2 - Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…al objection. “Notice issued u/s 148 as well as consequential reassessment order passed u/s 147, for A.Y. 2015-16, are bad in law on account of being time barred, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and the Hon'ble jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. ACIT- SCA No. 18099 of 2022.” 6.1. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal grounds taken by the assessee in respect of reopening of the case for the reason that the quantum addition made by the Assessing Office…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Anavil Business Centre, Hazira Raod vs. Sharmishthaben Shivlal Ponkia, Umra, Bharthana B.O, Surat

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

ITA 1002/SRT/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 &2 - Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…al objection. “Notice issued u/s 148 as well as consequential reassessment order passed u/s 147, for A.Y. 2015-16, are bad in law on account of being time barred, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and the Hon'ble jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. ACIT- SCA No. 18099 of 2022.” 6.1. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal grounds taken by the assessee in respect of reopening of the case for the reason that the quantum addition made by the Assessing Office…

M.A. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1st Floor, Kol-700001.. [PAN: AACCM0481E] vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : October 09, 2025 Date of pronou…

Mukesh Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 811/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 68Section 69A

…itted on behalf of the Assessee that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and bad in law in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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]. Since we have remanded the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee granted an opportunity to raise the said contention before the Ld. CIT(A). 10. In terms of the 8 & 9 above, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed being r…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1038/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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 ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 Act, the time limit for iss…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1037/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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 ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 Act, the time limit for iss…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1036/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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 ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 Act, the time limit for iss…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(2) (Now DCIT, Cent.Cir. 4(2)), Kolkata

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

ITA 1035/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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 ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 Act, the time limit for iss…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

ITA 2309/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…e Act is solely founded on information /material emanating from search action u/s132 of the Act and it is not a case of general assessment based on routine or non search issues. Reference was made to Hon’ble Apex court decision in case of UOI vs Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46, where it has been held that; “If a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Further, when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner, then that authority has to exercise its power follow…