How many judgments cite Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal?

713 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46), spanning 2023 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 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. 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 366,421 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 148 Section 147 Section 148A Section 151 Section 149 Section 144B Section 250 Section 144

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

Kiran Kantilal Sanghvi, Malad West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(3)(2) Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1663/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…cision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal's in the case of ITO 10(3)(1), Mumbai V. Pushpak Realities Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.4816/Mum/2024.) wherein following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision rendered in the case of Union of India and Others V. Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC), it was held that even under the TOLA, the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 148 expired on 30/06/2021 both for A.Y. 2013-14. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that as the second notice issued u/s.148 on the legal heir of the assessee dated 29/07/2022 is time barred and the extension available under TOLA will not be applicable to the present facts.…

Praful Arjun Rane, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 18Section 56Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Praful Arjun Rane ITO Int Tax Ward-4(1)(1), F 801, Dheeraj Presidency, Mumbai M.G. Road vs Sanskruti Bhavan, Kandivali West Mumbai – 400 067 [PAN: AGXPR2983E] Appellant Respondent Present for: Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah, CA Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the final order…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, Delhi, New Delhi vs. M/S Jkm Infra Projects Ltd., Noida, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 3031/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Vs. M/S. Jkm Infra Projects Ltd, Central Circle-19, Sector-9, Noida Delhi Maharishinagar, Maharishi Nagar, So Gautam Budh Nagar, Up 201304 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcj3577H Co 132/Del/2025 (In Ita No. 3031/Del/2025) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Jkm Infra Projects Ltd, Vs. Acit, Sector-9, Noida Central Circle-19, Maharishinagar, Maharishi Delhi Nagar, So Gautam Budh Nagar, Up 201304 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcj3577H

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

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

…nder Section 153A or Section 153C, as in force at that time. 9. We also consider it apposite to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693/ [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC): "49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the releva…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3030/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3029 & 3030/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) ACIT, Vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, Central Circle-25, 98, Okhla Industrial Estate, Tehkhand, South East Delhi, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACD0132H Assessee by : Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA Shri Rajat Garg, CA Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/09/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: These appeal in ITA No…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3029/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149A

Toyota Boshoku Corporation, Japan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) - International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumartoyota Boshoku Corporation, Vs. Acit, 1-1, Toyoda-Cho, Kariya Shi, Circle-3(1)(1), International Aichi, Japan Taxation, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadct4951B Assessee By : Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Shri Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Reema Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149A

…at arises for our consideration is as to whether the subsequent notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 29.07.2022 is to be treated as time barred 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 (SC). In this regard, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal referred (supra) as under:- “110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of S…

Dattaprasad Radhakisan Revgade, Hivargaon vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1897/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra, Judicialmember & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1897/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dattaprasad Radhakisan V The Income Tax Officer, Revgade, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. At Hivargaon Post Dongargaon, Tal Aklole, Ahmednagar – 422609. Pan: Cddpr8213C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19 Dated 23.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

…o valid and proper sanction by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act as sanction is accorded by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Pune whereas since three years were elapsed, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal -469 ITR 46, the sanction ought have been obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune which admittedly not obtained and hence, the said notice as well as consequential assessment order deserves to be quashed. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the order passed under section 148A…

Nashit Suhail Anshari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)

…1 ITA No.4416/Mum/025 NashitSuhail Ansari IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Nashit Suhail Ansari National Faceless Assessment Centre / C 1/3, Kailashchandra CHS Ltd Vs Income-tax Officer, Wad 30(1)(1) Mahindra Nagar Dayabhai Patel Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra (E), Road, Malad East, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 097 PAN : BLNPA7046M Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri Devendra Jain, Advocate Revenue by Shri Vikash Chandra, Addl.CIT Date of Institution 07.07.2025 Date of hearing 10.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.0…

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1682/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

…General Insurance Co. Ltd., barred by limitation based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India (UOI) v Rajeev Supreme Court in case of Union of India (UOI) v Rajeev Supreme Court in case of Union of India (UOI) v Rajeev Bansal [469 ITR 46 (SC)] Bansal [469 ITR 46 (SC)]. 2.2 It is submitted that the Company had received a notice under 2.2 It is submitted that the Company had received a notice under 2.2 It is submitted that the Company had received a notice under section 148 of the Act for AY section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 on 30 June 2021. Further, 16 on 30 June 2021. Further,…

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1681/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1680/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1679/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

Mukesh, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1489/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Mukesh Vs. Ito 129, Ganga Ram Panna, Ward- 43(1) Kair, Najafgarh Delhi Delhi Pan: Apvpm4449M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Shankar Lalverma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 2Section 54

…ee addressing on Ground No. 1, vehemently submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 08/07/2022 is barred by limitation in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (S.C). The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has provided the date and event chart and sought for allowing the Ground No.1 of the Assessee. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Ground No. 1 of the Assessee that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation does not have merit. Further submitted that, issuing o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Suncity Infrastructures Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4831/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Lgf-10, Vasant Square Mall, Vs. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaics7928N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Pawan Garg, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10115325 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144B Dated 29.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real State. The Return Of Income Of The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,54,930/- & The Same Was Assessee U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 24.11.2017 Wherein The Income Declared Was Accepted By The Ao. Thereafter, Based On The Information That The Assessee Has Dcit Vs. Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Allotted Preference Shares To One Shri Tarun Agarwal, At 16546/- Per Which Were Not Commensurate With The Financials Of The Company & After Obtaining The Approval Form The Competent Authority Notice Was Issued U/S 148 Dated 31.03.2021 Which Was Served Upon The Assessee On 01.04.2021. Thereafter, Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Rs.11,00,00,000/- Was Made On Account Of Share Premium Treated As Unexplained U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

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

…ording to ld. AR, consequent reassessment proceedings based on such invalid notice deserves to be held bad in law and liable to quashed. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional high Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal and Ors. vs. ITO & Ors. [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Del.) and in the case of Makemytrip India Private Limited vs. DCIT & Anors. Reported in [2025] 4 TMI 46 (Delhi). The assessee further filed details written submissions wherein the a…

Bhavesh Jayanti Sondarwa, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3009/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bhavesh Jayanti Sondarwa Ito Ward 19(1)(1) A/1, 6Th Floor, Room No. 603 Room No. 501 Samrat Ashok Chs, S.K. Vs. Piramal Chambers Rathod Marg, Ambedkar Lalbaug, Parel Nagar, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 034. Pan : Cnpps2949G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin SalunkheFor Respondent: Shri Navin Gandhi, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 149(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

…ped income was less than Rs. 50 lakh, being 1/3rd of the proposed addition of Rs. 1.05 crore. 3. The Ld. AR of the appellant has filed detailed written submission and also in which reliance was placed on the decision of Rajiv Bansal of Hon'ble Supreme Court (469 ITR 46). In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a table which clearly shows who is the competent authority to give approval to reopen the assessment depending on the time limits. After the expiry of three years the competent authority to issue approval is Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas in this…

Acharya Balkrishna, Haridwar vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…sing Officer(s) vide section 148 notices issued on 21st & 20th July, 2022, case-wise respectively. This is for the precise reason that the department already appears to have conceded the very issue of limitation aspect in Union of India Vs Rajiv Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) that the provision of Taxation and Other Laws [Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions] Act, 2020 "TOLA" would not apply for assessment year 2015-16 herein. It further emerges that the very issue between the parties is no more res integra in light of the tribunal's recent learned coordinate bench's order dated 23.07.2025 passed in ITA…

Shaik Saida, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 337/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

…5] 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC) held as follows: - “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 inUnion of India and Ors. 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- 2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Prov…

Shaik Saida, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 336/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.680/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Sama Sangeeta Reddy The DCIT, [GPA Holder Sama Sunil vs. Central Circle-3(2), Reddy], Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 029. PIN – 500 070. Telangana. Telangana. PAN BKVPS1921A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA, KA Sai Prasad For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Orde…

Kiran, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-43(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1495/DEL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1495/DEL/2025 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) Kiran, C/o Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi - 110 085. (PAN : ADLPR6925K) vs. ITO, Ward 43 (1), Delhi. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: Shri Sandeep Goel, Advocate REVENUE BY: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date of Order : 24.09.2025 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld…