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 366,005 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Vinay Agrawal, Mahasamund

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 30/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…wed to furnish the aforesaid reply expires. 12 ITA No. 29 & 30/RPR/2025 and CO No. 2 & 3/RPR/2025 Dy. CIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Shri Vinay Agrawal, Mahasamund 21. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, further clarified as under: (i) The A.O is required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act which were required to be issued within the time limit specified under section 151 o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Vinay Agrawal, Mahasamund

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 29/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Cle Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6270/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6270/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) CLE Private Limited DCIT, Central Circle- 3(4), Mumbai 7th Floor, Raheja Point I, Vs. Vakola, Santacruz(E), Mumbai- 400055. PAN: AACCR 7266 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra Sanghvi Revenue by : Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR & Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2025 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: Both these appeals filed by th…

Cle Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6269/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Kamlesh Kukreja, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

ITA 379/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 379/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

…where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish the aforesaid reply expires. 21. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, further clarified as under: (i) The A.O is required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 17 Kamlesh Kukreja Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act which were required to be issued withi…

Rekha Chandrakant Padalkar, Kandivali (East) vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6554/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Rekha Chandrakant Padalkar Ito 42(3)(2) 701/702 B Wing, Gokul Kautilya Bhavan Paradise, Thakur Complex Vs. Bandra Kurla Kandivali East, Mumbai Complex, Bandra 400 101. East, Mumbai-51. Pan : Awdpp8597Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Dinar Prakash Daptari

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 50CSection 54

…ion. In view of the improper approval, it was argued that the assessment order passed by Ld. AO is void ab intio and bad in law. The Ld. AR of appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal and other (340 CTR 865) (SC). 5. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 4 Rekha Chandrakant Padalkar 6. After hearing both sides, it is decided that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal and others (supra), which is followed by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of…

Surya Vanijya P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

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

ITA 2205/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)

…sideration. It was pleaded by the ld AR that the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 29-7-2022 are barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the surviving period as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC). The ld AR also submitted that the escapement of income for both the years under consideration is less than Rs 50 lakhs even according to the ld AO while recording the reasons. 4. Admittedly the 1st notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 25-6-2021 has been issued beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Hence as pe…

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai vs. Devang Ajit Javeri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

ITA 4498/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

…DIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Shri Devang Ajit Jhaveri Vs. JCIT Range 17(1) 22/23, Bharatiya Bhavan Mumbai 72, N.S. Road Marine Drive Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAHPJ4783G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & DCIT Range 17(1) Vs. Shri Devang Ajit Jhaveri Mumbai 22/23, Bharatiya Bhavan 72, N.S. Road Marine Drive Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAHPJ4783G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vinod Bindal Revenue by Shri R.R. Makwana Date of Hearing 22/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश / O R D…

Devang Ajit Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Range 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

ITA 3510/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

Rajuri Steels & Tmt Bars Pvt.Ltd, Jalna vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 2, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2200/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2200/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajuri Steels & TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd., Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Plot No. F-16-17 and Gut No. 49, Aurangabad 51 & 52, MIDC Phase-II, Daregaon, Vs. Jalna-400009 PAN : AAICS2970E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.D. Bhide Department by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 23-01-2025 Date of 28-01-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORD…

Mr. Ramlal G. Suthar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 3224/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarmr. Ramlal G Suthar Vs Ito, Ward 10(2)(3), Mumbai Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar A/704, Riddhi Siddhi Complex Near S.T. Stand, M.G. Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Sukarwadi, Borivali (E), 020 Mumbai-400 066 Pan :Afvpm2258J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh JainFor Respondent: Shri Balasaheb Nagve (SR DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mr. Ramlal G Suthar vs ITO, Ward 10(2)(3), Mumbai Room No.212, 2nd Floor, Aayakar A/704, Riddhi Siddhi Complex Near S.T. Stand, M.G. Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Sukarwadi, Borivali (E), 020 Mumbai-400 066 PAN :AFVPM2258J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Hitesh Jain Respondent by : Shri Balasaheb Nagve (SR DR) Date of hearing : 16/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 27/01/2025 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE: Instant appeal of the assessee was file…

M/S. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5495/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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…

JCIT (in-Situ), Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. Tezas Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both, the appeal of revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1505/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1505/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 JCIT, (IN-SITU), Circle-4(1), Kolkata ………….. Appellant Vs. Tezas Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. .............. Respondent CTS 626/29, Nr. Tanishq Showroom, Next to Raval Tower, Sundervan Complex, Village Oshiwara, Andheri West, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400053. (PAN: AACCT0807B) & C.O. No. 46/Kol/2024 In I.T.A. No.:1505/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Tezas Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ……….. Cross Objector Vs. JCIT, (IN-SITU), Ci…

Integrated Core Strategies (Asia) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2608/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68Section 90

…imit specified under the Act. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that the consequent reassessment proceedings would be rendered void and liable to be quashed. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693] to submit that the test for checking the validity of notices issued under section 148 under new regime for AY 2020-21 or prior years is whether the period of 6 years has expired at the time of issue of such notice and in that case the notice under section 148 become invalid. The ld. AR thus submitted that in the light of the observat…

Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 48(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1272/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2009-2010

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

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

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

Madurai Tuticorin Expressways Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

ITA 1143/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…am v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and CCE v. Flock (India) (P) Ltd.)" (emphasis supplied by us) 20. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court had further observed that any exercise of powe…

Cyient Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation

ITA 913/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.913/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Ankit Jain Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Agwpa4459K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)Section 292CSection 69

…dam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and CCE v. Flock (India) (P) Ltd.)" (emphasis supplied by us) 20. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court had further observed that any exercise of powe…

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 New Delhi, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

…ngs initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) pursuant to the notice issued under section 148 dated 28.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 is liable to be set aside in view of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 469 ITR 46 (2024) 3 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) dated 03.10.2024 and applied by Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Makemytrip India Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1) Delhi & ANR. W.P. (C) 2557/2023 dated 24.03.2025. 10. On the facts and circumstances the learned CITIA) has erred in confirming…

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

ACIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Orbit Financial Capital, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5812/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT 19(1) Vs. M/s. Orbit Financial 506, 5th Floor, Capital Piramal Chamber 7 Mehta Mahal, Lalbaug, 15 Mathew Road, Mumbai- 400012. Opera House, Charni Road, Maharashtra- 400007. PAN/GIR No.AACFO3151E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C. O. No.287/M/2024 (Arising Out OfITA No.5812/M/2024) (Assessment Year :2015-16) M/s. Orbit Financial Vs. ACIT 19(1) Capital 506, 5th Floor, 7 Mehta Mahal, Piramal Chamber 15 Mathew Road, Lalbaug, Opera House, Mumbai- 400012. Charni Road, Maharashtra-…