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 148Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 149Section 144BSection 250Section 144
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

M/S.Wellknown Polyesters Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8704/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…ion 151 of the Act, would be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In support, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46, wherein it has been held that the sanctioning authority has to be in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act, based on the new provisions u/s 148A of the Act. 4.2. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records…

ITO-23(3)(6).Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6132/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

For Appellant: Shri Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 PAN/GIR No. AASFR 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/s. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 PAN/GIR No. AASFR 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant by : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent by : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR) Dat…

M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT, Circle 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5754/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

For Appellant: Shri Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 PAN/GIR No. AASFR 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/s. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 PAN/GIR No. AASFR 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant by : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent by : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR) Dat…

ITO(Exemptions), Vadodara vs. Muslim Islahi Jamat, Vejalpur Road, Godhra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1854/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69

…stment u/s. 69 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee as per the guideline of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 and Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46. 4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee before the CIT(A). The notice u/s. 148 under new regime was issued on 28-07-2022 in the present assessee’s case for assessment year 2016-17 and the earlier notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30-06-2021.…

Kamalapat Ratanchand Chopra, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Mumbai

ITA 7880/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7880/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamalapat Ratanchand Chopra Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Mumbai GW-6051, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 (PAN: AABPC5342A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee Revenue Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala and Shri Saiprasad Ghosh, CAs : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR. : 10.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT…

Maheboob Abbas Shaikh, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 876/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 876/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Maheboob Abbas Shaikh, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bhada Muslim Faliya, Kamrej, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat-394180 Surat [PAN : EAAPS 6740 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay condoned. This appeal has been filed by the assessee again…

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 938/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 938/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Jindal, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 561, Adarsh Market, Ring Ward 1(1)(3), Road, Surat-395003 Surat [PAN : AAKPJ 5190 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Respondent represented by: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Date of Hearing 23.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order date…

Aman Gupta, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Ltu Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 2565/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2565/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Aman Gupta, The Deputy Commissioner A-1, Vrindavan Enclave, Vs. Of Income Tax, 189, Lloyds Road, Circle 1, Gopalapuram, Ltu, Chennai – 600 086. Chennai. Pan: Adzpa 0417D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Tharish, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri V. Tharish, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 147ASection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2565/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Aman Gupta, The Deputy Commissioner A-1, Vrindavan Enclave, Vs. of Income Tax, 189, Lloyds Road, Circle 1, Gopalapuram, LTU, Chennai – 600 086. Chennai. PAN: ADZPA 0417D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri V. Tharish, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent…

ACIT22(1), Mumbai vs. Spr Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 6562/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia, ()

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…section 151 of the Act, would be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46, wherein it has been held that the sanctioning authority has to be in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act, based on the new provisions u/s 148A of the Act. 4.2. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records…

Anju Purohit, Thane vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Kalyan

In the result appeal for assessment year 2017-18 stands allowed on legal issue raised in additional ground vide application dated 07/01/2026 and appeal for assessment year

ITA 6345/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 131Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.6344 & 6345/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Anju Purohit Vs. Income Tax Officer, 25, Seema Vaibhav, Ward 3(1), Kalyan Thangewadi, Near St. Rani Mansion, Thomas School, Kalyan Murbad Road, Kalyan West, Kalyan city H.O, 421301 Thane 421301 PAN:AKSPP9232H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms Rutuja Pawar Ms. Saloni Sankhe Respondent by Shri Brajendra Kumar SR. DR Date of Hearing 14/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 17/02/2026 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeals filed b…

Anju Purohit, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Kalyan

In the result appeal for assessment year 2017-18 stands allowed on legal issue raised in additional ground vide application dated 07/01/2026 and appeal for assessment year

ITA 6344/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 131Section 148Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.6344 & 6345/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Anju Purohit Vs. Income Tax Officer, 25, Seema Vaibhav, Ward 3(1), Kalyan Thangewadi, Near St. Rani Mansion, Thomas School, Kalyan Murbad Road, Kalyan West, Kalyan city H.O, 421301 Thane 421301 PAN:AKSPP9232H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms Rutuja Pawar Ms. Saloni Sankhe Respondent by Shri Brajendra Kumar SR. DR Date of Hearing 14/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 17/02/2026 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeals filed b…

Choday Janaki Ramayya Chowdary, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 623/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…& Public Spirited Media Foundation & Ors. V. ACIT in W.P.No.8848 of 2023, dated 11.09.2025. the Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid order had after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 340 CTR 865 (SC), quashed the notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 10.04.2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17 by treating the same as barred by limitation as per the “first proviso” to section 149(1)(b) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, i deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the Hon’ble High Court, as under:- Page. No 13 I.T.A.No.623/VIZ/2025 Cho…

Mandeep Kaur, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Fatehabad

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 630/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.630/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ms. Mandeep Kaur Ito Ward -1 बनाम/ Vs. Vpo Museh Ali Hizrawan, Khurd, To Fatehabad Rohtak - 124001 Fatehabad, Haryana – 125050 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Datpk-9813-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar (Virtual) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 17-02-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144Of The Act On30-04-2023. 2. The Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Urged Legal Ground No.4 To Assail The Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao. In This Ground Of Appeal, It Has Been Pleaded That The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) As Well As Issue Of Notice U/S 148

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain (CA) – Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…oval has been taken by Ld. AO from PCIT-1, Rohtak which is not the specified authority in the case of the assessee as per the provisions of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act. 6. We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court, in subsequent decision titled as UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (167 Taxmann.com 70 dated 03-10- 2024), after the fall out of its own decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), dealt with the issueof sanction of the specified authority and concluded that TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified u/s.151. As per this decision, the test to determine whether TOLA will apply to…

Santosh Laxman Malusare, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3075/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Laxman Malusare, Vs Ward-5(2), Pune. Lahagaon, Moze Ali Haveli, Pune – 411047. Pan: Awzpm1600M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rushab Shah Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 14.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 24.11.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per The Provisions & Scheme Of The Act, It Be Held That Re-Opening Of The

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 234ASection 250Section 698

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.3075/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Laxman Malusare, Vs Ward-5(2), Pune. Lahagaon, Moze Ali Haveli, Pune – 411047. PAN: AWZPM1600M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Rushab Shah Revenue by Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.CIT Date of hearing 27/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 16/02/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed b…

Saikat Chinmay Bhattacharya, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

ITA 582/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.582/Bang/2025

For Appellant: CA Darshit Naik, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69

…first proviso to Section 149(1), is not met. The notice, having been issued after the expiry of the time limit under the old law, is therefore invalid. 8.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 meticulously analyzed the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below-…

Arun Duraiswamy, Mysore, Karnataka vs. ITO, Intl. Taxation Ward 1(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: CA Deepak Gunashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69Section 69C

…irst proviso to Section 149(1), is not met. The notice, having been issued after the expiry of the time limit under the old law, is therefore invalid. 7.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 meticulously analyzed the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below- “45. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) provides thus: "149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, - (a) If three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment y…

Adarsh Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7945/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 50CSection 50C(2)

…section 151 of the Act, would be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46, wherein it has been held that the sanctioning authority has to be in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act, based on the new provisions u/s 148A of the Act. 4.2. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. I have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records p…

Kantilal Ranchhodbhai Nakum, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 551/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.551/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kantilal Ranchhodbhai Nakum Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Plot No.762, Gidc, Phase-2, बनाम/ Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Nr. Dared, Jamnagar-361 004 Vs. Chamber Of Commerce Hall, Jamnagar- Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361 001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aflpn 8072 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Manek, Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.07.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, On 12.05.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Reopening Of Assessment U/S 148 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Manek, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ssment year (AY) 2015-16, got expired on 31.03.2019, as per amended section 149(1)(a) of the Act, as applicable from 01.04.2021. Therefore, we find that notice u/s 148 of the Act was beyond time allowed as held in the decision of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), dated 03.10.2024. The revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision at Para ‘f’ therein, that for AY. 2015- 16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under TOLA. 9. We note that even if the time limit of six years from the end of assessment yea…

Power Security Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-5(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2943/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2943/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 154Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं सु"ी पदमावती यस, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2943/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Power Security Corporation Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, New No.18, Old No.22, Vs. Corporate Ward-5(2), Lake Area, 1st Cross Street, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAGCP 2703C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A ()थ" की ओर से…

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavik Prafulchandra Vora, Gujrat

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7602/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 68

…I.T.A. No. 7602/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 20/Mum/2026 Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46, wherein it has been held that the sanctioning authority has to be in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act, based on the new provisions u/s 148A of the Act. 4.2. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. I have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records p…