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 366,339 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shantilal Chimanlal Sheth, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 6866/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Jeet Kamdar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

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

…al – 3 on 28/07/2022. The challenge of the assessee is the invalid approval of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. We find that a similar quarrel was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/469 ITR 46 (SC), as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of getting approval from the appropriate authority u/s 151 of the Act before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act to cases where the revenue has invoked the provisions of the Section 148A of the Act as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Ag…

Jay Rajesh Kedia, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6565/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am Jay Rajesh Kedia, Income Tax Officer, Sagar Jyoti, Plot No.18, 6Th Road, Ward- 34(2)(1), Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400056 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Anupk 3683L Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM Jay Rajesh Kedia, Income Tax Officer, Sagar Jyoti, Plot No.18, 6th Road, Ward- 34(2)(1), JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400056 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. ANUPK 3683L Appellant by : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 18.10.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre…

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs. Vighneshwar Ispat Pvt Ltd, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 343/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.343/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Chawda &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.343/RPR/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Vighneshwar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. C-10, Super Estate Colony, New Purena, Amlidih, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) PAN: AADCV1013G ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Chawda & Shri B. Subramaniyam, CAs Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई…

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Ilesh B Ponkia, Surat

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

ITA 901/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 69A

…ppearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union I.T.A No. 901//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 5 ITO Vs. Ilesh B Ponika 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 Provi…

Heena Irfan Bepari, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1185/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 44A

…rder of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pratishta Garg Vs. ACIT WP(C) 16878/2024 vide order dated 19.12.2024. ITA No.1185/PUN/2025 [A] 2.3 The ld.AR also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal – 469 ITR 46. Ld.AR invited our attention to the submission Additional Solicitor General(ASG) which is at para 19 of the said order. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Findings &Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In t…

Heena Irfan Bepati, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1184/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1183 & 1184 /Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Heena Irfan Bepari, V The Income Tax Officer, 661, Raviwar Peth, S Ward-5, Sangli. Madhavnagar, Sangli – 416416. Maharashtra. Pan: Bnepb9635A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte– Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Both Dated 24.03.2025 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…ng ITA Nos.1183 & 1184/PUN/2025 [A] the dates. The ld.AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws :  Kolte Patil Integrated Township Ltd. in ITA No.2023 and 2011/PUN/2024.  Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, ITA No.1562/PUN/2024  UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC)  Nilanjana Arvinder Singh Vs. DCIT in ITA No.6140/MUM/2024 and  Smt Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi Vs. ACIT in ITA No.3013/CHNY/2024. 2.2 The Chart submitted by ld.AR is as under : AY S. PARTICULARS 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 No . 1 FIRST NOTICE U/S 148 30.06.2021 30.06.2021 30.06.2021 2 CLOSURE OF THIS PROCEEDINGS POST ASHISH AGARWAL 26.05.2022 2…

Heena Irfan Bepari, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1183/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Bhagwandas Jagdish Prasad, Bagbahara vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur28 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.412 & 413/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhagwandas Jagdish Prasad Petrol Pump, Main Road, Bagbahara-493 449 (C.G.) Pan: Aamfb0173H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…by the A.O is not emanating from the statute, hence, the said observation is perverse and infructuous and does not contain legal validity. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, observed that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed 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. Elaborating further, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that any exe…

Bhagwandas Jagdish Prasad, Bagbahara vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda, Guntur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.332/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda Vs. Pr. Cit 1-99, Rudravaram – 522410 Siddhardha Public School Road Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Mogalrajapurm Vijayawada – 520010 [Pan: Amcpg7882N] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.332/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda Vs. Pr. CIT 1-99, Rudravaram – 522410 Siddhardha Public School Road Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Mogalrajapurm Vijayawada – 520010 [PAN: AMCPG7882N] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्र…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Naresh Jaiprakash Shroff, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee

ITA 2793/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. D/R

Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151(2)Section 3(1)

…proval of the notice by the PCIT(1), Mumbai accorded on 26/07/2022. 6. The issue whether approval has been accorded by the appropriate authority has been elaborately explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded as under:- I.T.A. No. 2793/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 131/Mum/2025 5 “(a) After 1-4-2021, the Income-tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions; (b) TOLA will continue to apply to the Income-tax Act after 1-4-2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions…

Arvind Bansal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 44(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5495/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumararvind Bansal, Vs. Ito, 15, Second Floor, Sainik Ward-44(1), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpb8185E

For Appellant: Sr. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149ASection 68

…hat arises for our consideration is as to whether the subsequent notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 30.6.2022 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…

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 222/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

…s were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR contended that the reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16 was barred on account of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03-10-2024]. I T A N o . 2 2 2 / K o l / 2 0 2 5 I T A N o . 1 9 4 6 / K o l / 2 0 2 4 U r v a s h i S a r e e s P v t . L t d . 3.1. We have carefully considered this aspect and we have also gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Ground nos. 5 and 7 of the assessee’s appeal relate to the reopening as being bad in law as it is…

Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1946/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

Sunita Ramesh Dhanani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3443/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Sunita Ramesh Dhanani Ito – 22(3)(6), Mumbai 9 Alankarchs, Senapatibapat Marg Vs Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400016. Parel, Mumbai – 400012. [Pan No. Ajapd9146R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)

…That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding reassessment proceedings contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). 1.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding reassessment proceedings although the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not contain a valid DIN. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” Sunita Ramesh D…

Pramod Shivram Sawant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 3420/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Pramod Shivram Sawant Assessment Unit, Income Tax Room No. 8, 129/139, C Wing, Chandra Vs Department, Mumbai Terrace, Khadilkar Road, Girgaon, Mumbai-400004. [Pan No. Awpps4139P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 144ASection 148Section 148ASection 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Pramod Shivram Sawant Assessment Unit, Income Tax Room No. 8, 129/139, C Wing, Chandra Vs Department, Mumbai Terrace, Khadilkar Road, Girgaon, Mumbai-400004. [PAN No. AWPPS4139P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Ajinkya Vaishampayan, CA Revenue by Sh. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Institution 15.05.2025 Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.07.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assesse…

Deepak Singhal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3355/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Deepak Singhal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-109, Street No. 10, Ward-36(1), Swaroop Nagar, New Delhi Delhi PAN: DUWPS5822P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Manuj Sabharwal, Adv. Sh. Drona Negi, Adv. Sh. Devvrat Tiwari, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre…

Neha Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1728/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Neha Goel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-22/35, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajspb1120D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neha Goel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-22/35, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi Delhi PAN: AJSPB1120D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Sanya Khurana, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25…

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

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

ITA 2307/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2307/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम Sh. Deepak Agarwal Dcit, B-260, 3Rd Floor, Yozna Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-25, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Adkpa0795K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 68

…ITA No.2307/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2307/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम SH. DEEPAK AGARWAL DCIT, B-260, 3rd Floor, Yozna Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-25, Delhi. Delhi. PAN No.ADKPA0795K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 03.06.2025 23.07.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the…

Tyagi Pipe Craft Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 147/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumartyagi Pipe Craft Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, B-2/18, Ashok Vihar, Ward-25(3), Phase-Ii, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact0871F

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)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 23.07.2022 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…