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.

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 46)

Ankit Gupta, Punjabi Bagh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 44(6), Civic Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 5310/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5310/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम Ankit Gupta, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, House No.11, Road No.29, Vs. Ward 44(6), Civic Centre, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Agypg8404C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 153(6)Section 153CSection 156Section 157ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…ITA No.5310/Del/2024 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.5310/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम ANKIT GUPTA, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, House No.11, Road No.29, Vs. Ward 44(6), Civic Centre, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No.AGYPG8404C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Adv. Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 04.06.2025 23.07.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O…

Virendra Gir Goswami, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.411/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Virendra Gir Goswami 85, Hathkhoj, Utai, Durg-491 107 (C.G) Pan: Aljpg4888N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

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

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…order suffers from lack of jurisdiction as enshrined in the statute then all subsequent proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. 8. I 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…

Shri Bharat Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bharat Patel Prop.- Disha Sales, C/O. V.S. Patel, Umiya Market, Bhanpuri, Raipur-492 009 (C.G.) Pan: Ajmpp6194M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…order suffers from lack of jurisdiction as enshrined in the statute then all subsequent proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. 8. I 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…

Avanindra Nath Agrawal, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.128/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Avanindra Nath Agrawal 1063, Akansha, Geeta Nagar, Opportunity. Anupam Nagar Garden, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aehpa0353D

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

Section 139Section 143Section 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…

Solo Hotels India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Circle 11(1).Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross

ITA 2540/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed As There Was Non-Compliance On Behalf Of The Assessee. Being Aggrieved By & Dissatisfied The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Us.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH”, KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2540/KOL/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 Solo Hotels India Private Limited, 16th Floor, Biowonder At Premises No. 789, Anandapur, E.M. Bye Pass, West Bengal - 700107 [PAN: AAPCS8294Q] Appellant vs. Respondent Circle 11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 Appearances by: Assessee represented by Department represented by : Anil Kochar, Advocate : Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing Date of pronouncing th…

Bhadresh Mansukhlal Dodhia, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 2218/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhadresh Mansukhlal Dodhia Dcit – Cc-3, Thane 60/100, New Mavji Compound Behind Vs Room No. 12, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Ratan, Talkies Narpoli Bhiwandi, Maharashtra-421302. Thane West, [Pan No. Afhpd2871E] Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 37Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Bhadresh Mansukhlal Dodhia DCIT – CC-3, Thane 60/100, New Mavji Compound Behind Vs Room No. 12, A Wing, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Ratan, Talkies Narpoli Bhiwandi, Maharashtra-421302. Thane West, [PAN No. AFHPD2871E] Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Ravi Ganatra & Ms. Simran Dhawan, Advocates Revenue by ShriSurendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Institution 29.03.2025 Date of hearing 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.07.2025 Order under section 254(1) of…

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, ITO, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5th Wing, Room No. 629, 6th Floor, Inlaks Park, vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 to C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, PAN : AFVPR6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R…

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 370/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke Vinita Bajoria Income Tax Officer, Vs. 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Ward 5(2), Road, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b…

R V Commodities Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2365/DEL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2365/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 R V Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Central Circle-25, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi-110005 Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch4714L Assessee By: Sh. Sandeep Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Cit(A)-25, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1072578016(1) Dated 27.01.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 2365/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 R V Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, C/o Kapil Goel, Adv. Central Circle-25, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi-110005 Delhi-110085 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCH4714L Assessee by: Sh. Sandeep Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)-25, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072578…

Khemraj Sinha, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Khemraj Sinha Proprietor: Jain Kirana Stores, Ganpat Chowk, Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan: Bonps5758B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…order suffers from lack of jurisdiction as enshrined in the statute then all subsequent proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. 8. I 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…

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 668/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'डी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री दुव्वुरु आरएल रेड्डी, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 668/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAJCS6622G Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT(DR) and S. B. Chakraborty, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 16…

The Garoh Co-Operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Dharamshala, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Dharamshala

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 67/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 66 & 67 /Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Garoh Co-operative Agricultural बनाम The ITO Service Society Limited Ward- Dharamshala C/o Tejmohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACAT6299H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/07/202…

The Garoh Co-Operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Dharamshala, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dharamshala, Dharamshala

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 66/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 66 & 67 /Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Garoh Co-operative Agricultural बनाम The ITO Service Society Limited Ward- Dharamshala C/o Tejmohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACAT6299H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/07/202…

Anurag Pandey, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Civic Centre

ITA 3924/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…inancial ITA 5050/Mum/2024 02.12.2024, of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Core Logistic Company WP No. 18168/2023 dated 05.06.2025 and decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Aggarwal (supra) as well as in the case of Rajeev Bansal as at 469 ITR 46. The Id counsel submitted that the facts of its case are fully covered by the above decisions and therefore, notice u/s 148 dated 16-07.2022 per se is void ab initio liable to be quashed and that the consequent reassessment order u/s 147 dated 29.05.2023 also cannot survive. 5. Per contra the Id DR relied upon the lower authorities. 6. We have h…

M/S Fantastic Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 253/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 1Section 142(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251Section 251(1)Section 69A

…manner merely set aside the proceedings to the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR pointed out that the notice u/s 148 of the Act having been issued on 27.07.2022 was time barred as per the case of Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 and the case of Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC), and this fact should have been duly considered by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR alternatively vehemently argued that even on merit the assessee had a good case and if the Ld. CIT(A) had gone through the evidences before him, he would have come to a different conclusion then what is visible from the impugned order. 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the…

Abdulzameer Hakim Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1366/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

…of the Act is beyond jurisdiction as the same is time barred. 2. The notice dated 27.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act for the A. Y. 2013-14 has become time barred as per the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOl v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) (03- 10-2024). Thus, the said notice issued under section 148 of the Act is time barred and therefore, void ab initio. 3. The NFAC is not justified in passing the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 setting aside the appeal of the Appellant without appreciating that the notice dated 27.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act has been issued b…

Abdulzameer Hakim Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1365/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

…of the Act is beyond jurisdiction as the same is time barred. 2. The notice dated 27.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act for the A. Y. 2013-14 has become time barred as per the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOl v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) (03- 10-2024). Thus, the said notice issued under section 148 of the Act is time barred and therefore, void ab initio. 3. The NFAC is not justified in passing the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 setting aside the appeal of the Appellant without appreciating that the notice dated 27.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act has been issued b…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…1 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Respondent ITA No. A.Y Applicant 4147/Mum/2024 2016-17 J Kumar DCIT , CC -5(1) 4148/Mum/2024 2017-18 Infraprojects Ltd Room No. 426, J Kumar House, 4th Floor, 4149/Mum/2024 2018-19 CTS No. 448, Kautilya Bhavan, 4150/Mum/2024 2019-20 448/1, 449, BKC, Bandra, 4153/Mum/2024 2020-21 Subhash Road, Mumbai – 4152/Mum/2024 2021-22 Vile Parle (E), 400051. 4151/Mum/2024 2022-23 Mumbai PAN AAACJ9161C 4585/Mum/2024 2016-17 DCIT , CC -5(1) J Kumar…

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…1 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Respondent ITA No. A.Y Applicant 4147/Mum/2024 2016-17 J Kumar DCIT , CC -5(1) 4148/Mum/2024 2017-18 Infraprojects Ltd Room No. 426, J Kumar House, 4th Floor, 4149/Mum/2024 2018-19 CTS No. 448, Kautilya Bhavan, 4150/Mum/2024 2019-20 448/1, 449, BKC, Bandra, 4153/Mum/2024 2020-21 Subhash Road, Mumbai – 4152/Mum/2024 2021-22 Vile Parle (E), 400051. 4151/Mum/2024 2022-23 Mumbai PAN AAACJ9161C 4585/Mum/2024 2016-17 DCIT , CC -5(1) J Kumar…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…1 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Respondent ITA No. A.Y Applicant 4147/Mum/2024 2016-17 J Kumar DCIT , CC -5(1) 4148/Mum/2024 2017-18 Infraprojects Ltd Room No. 426, J Kumar House, 4th Floor, 4149/Mum/2024 2018-19 CTS No. 448, Kautilya Bhavan, 4150/Mum/2024 2019-20 448/1, 449, BKC, Bandra, 4153/Mum/2024 2020-21 Subhash Road, Mumbai – 4152/Mum/2024 2021-22 Vile Parle (E), 400051. 4151/Mum/2024 2022-23 Mumbai PAN AAACJ9161C 4585/Mum/2024 2016-17 DCIT , CC -5(1) J Kumar…

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

Ankit Gupta, Punjabi Bagh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 44(6), Civic Centre, New Delhi

Virendra Gir Goswami, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

Shri Bharat Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur

Avanindra Nath Agrawal, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

Solo Hotels India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Circle 11(1).Kolkata, Kolkata

Bhadresh Mansukhlal Dodhia, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

R V Commodities Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, Delhi

Khemraj Sinha, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

The Garoh Co-Operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Dharamshala, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Dharamshala

The Garoh Co-Operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Dharamshala, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dharamshala, Dharamshala

Anurag Pandey, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Civic Centre

M/S Fantastic Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

Abdulzameer Hakim Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

Abdulzameer Hakim Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai