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

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 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

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 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 250Section 69A

V. Mangalakshmi, Tiruvannamalai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvannamalai

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

ITA 867/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT

Section 148Section 250

…be quashed. 4 The appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal and render justice. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) and in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltds., vs. CBDT reported in [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC), notice issued u/s.148 of the Act on 02.04.2022 is bad in law, as the same has been issued beyond the time limit. 4. The Ld.DR was duly heard. :- 3 -: 5. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Revenue in the case of R…

Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi, Chennai vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 3013/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Srikrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT

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

…he assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee, vide additional submissions dated 18.03.2025 and 24.04.2025 questioned the jurisdictional issues relying on the Hon’ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Rajiv Bansal vs Union of India reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC). 5. The Ld.AR submitted that notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 is time barred and liable to be set aside as the said notice is beyond “surviving period” as specified in para 114(g) and 114(h) in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, supra. 6. The Ld.DR submitted that the notice u/s.148 of the Act as p…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. Jodhpur Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 540/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blea.C.I.T., Circle-1, Jodhpur. Revenue By Assessee By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

…itations. This appeal of the department was heard as covered case by the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Union of India v. Rajeev 3 ITA No. 540/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Bansal", [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC) that for assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1-4-2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. 3. In the present case, first time, the Id. AO initiated the proceedings u/s 148 by issue of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Speciality Papers Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma 0 Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 153CSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 5054/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT-4(3)(1), Speciality Papers Limited. 649, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Floor No. 93, Dadiseth Agairy Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 PAN: AAECS0861Q Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Ms. Neha Sharma 0 Advocate & Priyanshi Chokshi, CA Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR : 05.06.2025 Date of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by th…

Late Vamanrao Ramalingam Arcot L/R by Sangeetha Vamanrao, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/HYD/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Vamanrao Ramalingam Vs. Income Tax Officer Arcot L/R By Smt. Sangeetha Ward 13 (1) Vamanrao, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aclpa4148G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A A.V. Saisudha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/06/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A A.V. SaisudhaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…Pr. Chief Commissioner or Pr. Director General or Chief Commissioner of Director General as the Page 5 of 8 ITA No 584 of 2025 Late Vamanrao Ramalingam Arcot case may be. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bhansal reported in 469 ITR 46 held in para 68, 69, 75 and 76 of the order as under: “68. After 1 April 2021, the Income-tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions. The substituted provisions apply retrospectively for past assessment years as well. On 1 April 2021, TOLA was still in existence, and the Revenue could not have ignored the application of TOLA and…

Satish Kumar Birdika, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1359/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 68

…wever, after amendment w.e.f 01.04.2021the new regime and into being forced and sanction should be granted by PCCIT. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following judgment, Supreme Court judgment passed in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajib Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46, on the order passed by the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Dalpat Balariya in ITA No. 1692/Ahd/2024, Bombay High Court decision passed in the case of [2024] 159 taxman.com and Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Kr. Vs. Union of India in [2024] 162 taxmann.com, ITAT, Mumbai Benches in ITA No. 1406/Mum/2024 & ors. 5. Contrary to that the L…

Ankita Lokesh Goyal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5408/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.5408/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम Ankita Loksh Goyal Income Tax Officer, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Vs. Ward 70(1), F-26/124, Sector-7, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi. Pan No.Ahypb1874C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 148ASection 151Section 250

…ITA No.5408/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 Nos.5408/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम ANKITA LOKSH GOYAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/o Kapil Goel, Adv. Vs. Ward 70(1), F-26/124, Sector-7, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi. PAN No.AHYPB1874C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv. Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 02.06.2025 27.06.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Addon Retail Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1970/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

…u/s.147, firstly, on the ground that there is no DIN allotted to the notice u/s.148 and secondly, 2 Addon Retail Private Limited the notice is invalid in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 on the ground of sanction by the authority specified u/s.151. 3. The brief facts are that assessee has filed its return of income on 13/10/2016 declaring total income at Rs.81,91,710/- which was processed u/s.143(1) on 22/11/2016. The ld. AO has noted that survey u/s.133 was conducted on 22/08/2017 in the case of Vinayak Textrade Pvt. Ltd. and sta…

Elsie Hubald, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: 19.06.2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A. No. 955/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Elsie Hubald, ITO, International Tax, Ward- Flat No. 802, Building D, Raheja 2(2)(1), Residency, K Vaidya Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra, Vs. Dindoshi Malad East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400097. PAN: AMRPH5353E Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri M. Subramanian, AR : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Revenue / Respondent by : 19.06.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee…

Dhaval Mahendrakumar Patel, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai.

In the result, the assessee succeeded on

ITA 1226/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Hybrid Hearing) Dhaval Mahrndrakumar Patel Ito, Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai 117 Ba, Panchratna, Opera House, Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai – 400004. Bandra Kurla Complex, [Pan No. Aoapp1829A] Mumbai,Maharashtra-400051 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 254(1)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hybrid hearing) Dhaval Mahrndrakumar Patel ITO, Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai 117 BA, Panchratna, Opera House, Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai – 400004. Bandra Kurla Complex, [PAN No. AOAPP1829A] Mumbai,Maharashtra-400051 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Sh. Rajesh Shah CA (Virtually appeared) Revenue by Sh. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.06.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL…

ITO-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Warasgaon Lake View Hotels Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-

ITA 2788/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 3(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2788/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer – 15(3)(1) Vs Warasgaon Lake View Hotels Ltd. Hincon House Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400083 [PAN: AABCL3822B] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) C.O. No. 141/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Warasgaon Lake View Hotels Ltd. Hincon House Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400083 [PAN: AABCL3822B] Vs Inc…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(1), New Delhi vs. Girish Kumar Gupta, Delhi

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

ITA 5366/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 68Section 69

…the learned counsel appearing for the revenue. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and ors. 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…

Rising Star Investment, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwin Chhag, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rising Star Investment Income-tax Officer, 101, Kartar Bhavan, Ward 26(1)(1), Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai Vs. Colaba, Mumbai - 400005 (PAN: AATFR9682E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri. Ashwin Chhag, CA Revenue : Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by assessee is against the order of Ld.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, New Delhi vs. Harish Kumar, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4676/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar vs. NFAC, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (PAN: AAIPK9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) And Asstt. Year : 2015-16 ACIT, vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15th floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. SP Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (PAN: AAIPK9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, CA Res…

Harish Kumar, Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4602/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 94(7)

Mohamedali Shabanali Badami, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 913/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Kirith Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mohamedali Shabanali Badami Income Tax Officer- 25(2)(1) Badami & Son, Mogal Mumbai Building, 25 Vaju Kotak Marg, Fort, MUMBAI – 400001, Vs Maharashtra (PAN: AALPB5829M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri. Kirith Sheth, CA Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 03.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by assessee is against the order of Ld.…

Ajay Multi Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2675/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68

…148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act (new regime) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 6 In this regard we deem it appropriate to refer to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03/10/2024]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, while dealing with the issue of approval from specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made the following observations: “74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old reg…

Anisha Raoof Dhanani, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 744/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

…bove referred cases, the assessment year involved was 2015-16 and the issue was decided in favour of the tax payer by considering the submission of the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). 6. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Agal, Sr. DR submitted that the Revenue’s submission before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) cannot be considered as decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), t…