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 366,314 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

Krishan Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)-Gurgaon, Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed

ITA 139/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 139/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Krishan Pal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca M R Sahu, Ward-2(2), House No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector- Gurgaon, 10A, Near G. D. Goenka Public Haryana-22001 School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Asqpk6236J Assessee By: Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068016367(1) Dated 27.08.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 80C

…l grounds of appeal raised above. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of "National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)", "VMT Spinning Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H)", "UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)". 4. The Revenue vehemently objects to the assessee's aforesaid application for admission of additional grounds that the same deserve to be rejected since filed at this belated stage. We find no merit in the Revenue's instant technical objections in light of NTPC Limited Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) & All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT 137…

M/S. Shreedhar Construction, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward- 1 (3) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

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

ITA 542/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 542/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S. Shreedhar Construction, The Ito, Vs. 211, Divyam Complex Airodrome Ward-1(3), Road,Jamnagar-361006 ( Gujarat) Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclfs0395R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ahimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

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

…y, up to 07.06 2022, but no reply was filed-Thereafter, order under section 148A(d) and fresh notice under section 148 were issued on 28.07.2022-It was noted that as per law laid down in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), reassessment notice under new regime had to be issued within "surviving time" available under Act read with TOLA, which expired on 16.06.2022. Whether in view of above, impugned notice dated 28-7- 2022 issued under section 148 would be invalid notice as said notice was issued after 16-6-2022 i.e. beyond 'surviving time' as held by Apex Court…

Jivanbhai De vs. Hibhai Sarla, Thangadh, Dist. Surendranagarvs.the ITO Ward 2, Surendranagar

ITA 521/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…s, are squarely covered in favour of assessee, by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR (1) (SC) dated 04.05.2022, and by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) dated 03.10.2024, as both the notices issued under section 148 of the Act, are beyond the surviving period. Therefore, in these two appeals, final notices issued by the assessing officer under section 148 of the Act, are time barred, hence reassessment proceedings may be quashed. ITA Nos.519 & 521/Rjt/2025 (AY 13-14 & 14-15) Jivanbhai D Sarla…

Jivanbhai De vs. Hibhai Sarla, Thangadh, Dist. Surendranagarvs.the ITO Ward-2, Surendranagar

ITA 519/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Elegance Reality, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2637/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 153CSection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 3(1)

…rred in law and on facts confirming action of jurisdictional AO issuing notice u/s 148 dated 11.06.2021 under the old regime for the year under consideration not taking cognizance of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v Rajiv Bansal [469 ITR 46] submitted. 3. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held the assessment time barred when the documents/evidence relied upon to reopen the assessment were handed over to the appellant after 30 days of issuance of notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act as mandated by Apex Court in Ashish Agrawal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64. 4. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confir…

Dilbagh Singh Dagar, Gurgaon vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 20/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 20/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dilbagh Singh Dagar, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, H. No. 1201, Maruti Vihar, Delhi Chakkarpur, Gurgaon-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpd9882D Assessee By: Sh. Dilbagh Singh Dagar(Individual) Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/102257039(1) Dated 03.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Dilbagh Singh Dagar(Individual)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…lf set into motion by the learned Assessing Officer vide section 148 notice issued on 05.04.2022. This is for the precise reason that the department already appears to have conceded the very issue of limitation aspect in Union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) that the provision of Taxation 2 Dilbagh Singh Dagar and Other Laws [Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions] Act, 2020 “TOLA” would not apply for assessment year 2015-16 herein. It further emerges that the very issue between the parties is no more res integra in light of the tribunal’s recent learned coordinate bench’s order dated 23…

Yoginder Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8766/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8766/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Yoginder Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-64A, Ground Floor, Nizamuddin Nwr-W-(107)(91), East, New Delhi-110013 Gurgoan (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adepy8432B Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083081772(1) Dated 27.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…by the learned Assessing Officer vide section 148 notice issued on 04.04.2022. This is for the precise reason that the department already appears to have conceded the very issue of limitation aspect in Union of India Vs. Rajiv 2 Yoginder Kumar Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) that the provision of Taxation and Other Laws [Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions] Act, 2020 “TOLA” would not apply for assessment year 2015-16 herein. It further emerges that the very issue between the parties is no more res integra in light of the tribunal’s recent learned coordinate bench’s order dated 23.07.2025 passed in ITA…

Raghavan Nambath Menon, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward Intl. Taxation 1(2), Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA 278/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: CA Suresh Muthukrishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 68

…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. 7.5 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 ye…

Rahul Meka, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward International Taxation-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 147Section 45Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No.813/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Rahul Meka, ITO (International Taxation), C-19 Kudremukh Colony, 2nd Block, Ward – 1(2), Koramangala, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 034, Karnataka. PAN NO :BDEPM 8117 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Divya K.J – CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appe…

Suman Jagannath Sankhe, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41.4.4, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 7528/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 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 (SC), 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. 4.1. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. Perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records pla…

Late Chanchal Hiralal Shah (Represented by Legal Heir Rohit Hiralal Shah), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6349/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

…2022 has been challenged on two grounds.  Firstly, the income alleged to have escaped assessment is less than ₹50 lakhs and, therefore, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), no notice 5 I.T.A. No. 6349/Mum/2025 u/s 148 under the new regime could have been issued. He submitted that, the statute is explicit that reopening beyond the prescribed period is not permissible where the alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakhs and section 149 of the Act does not contemplate issuance of notice in such a category.  Seco…

Anil Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 43(1), Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA 6415/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhrianil Kumar Garg, Vs. Dcit, Circle 43(1), E-15/120, 1St Floor, Delhi Shiv Road, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 (Pan: Aaapg1599A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 149ASection 21Section 30

…on that arises for consideration of the Bench is as to whether the subsequent notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act on 27.7.2022 is to be treated as time barred or not in the light of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC). To support his contention, he stated that the above facts can be verified from the following table and the compilation of the documents in paper book:- S.No. Particulars Paper Book 1. Assessment year 2016-17 2. Extended period of limitation 30.6.2021 as per IT Act read with TOLA 3. Date of original notice u/s. 30.6.2021 1 2 148 under uname…

Anil Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 43(1), Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA 6414/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

…on that arises for consideration of the Bench is as to whether the subsequent notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act on 21.7.2022 is to be treated as time barred or not in the light of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC). To support his contention, he stated that the above facts can be verified from the following table and the compilation of the documents in paper book:- S.No. Particulars Paper Book 1. Assessment year 2015-16 2. Extended period of limitation 30.6.2021 as per IT Act read with TOLA 3. Date of original notice u/s. 30.6.2021 1 148 under unamende…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Star Wire India Ltd

ITA/738/2025HC Delhi04 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 148

…the outset submitted that, since the notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 and AY 2014-15, the notice was in any case time-barred, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46. 4. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel is not in a position to dispute this legal position. 5. We, therefore, affirm the order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Tribunal as being covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory (supra), so also hold that the proceedings are time barred and beyond jurisdicti…

Jagdish Kumar Yadav, Durg vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 593/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.593/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jagdish Kumar Yadav Near Boudh Vihar Near To S.V Public School, Shankar Nagar, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aakpy0660J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

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

Ba Continuum India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 368/HYD/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मधुसूदन साव"डया, माननीय लेखा सद"य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 368/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2005-06) BA Continuum India Private VS. Dy. Commissioner of Income Limited, Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCC3062D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate Assessee Represented by राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chan…

Labdhi Logical Financial Solutions LLP, Dombivalt East, Thane vs. ITO 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7635/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarlabdhi Logical Financial Ito-3(2), Solutions Llp 2Nd Floor, Rani B-22, Gao Devi Prasad, Vs. Mansion, Murbad Domvivali East, Thane, Road, Kalyan, Maharashtra-421 201 Maharashtra- 421 301 Pan/Gir No. Aaefl7209G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(5)Section 68Section 69C

…in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), the said notice is deemed to be a notice under section 148A(b). 11. It was further submitted that, as per the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), only the “surviving period” as on 30.06.2021 is available to the Revenue for issuance of a fresh notice under section 148 after completion of the procedure under section 148A. The computation of limitation placed before us shows that only ten days were available to the Assessing Officer after the expiry of the reply period granted to the ass…

Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4597/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri Mani Jain a/w Shri Prateek

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…on in the public domain shows that in the said decision in 'Siemens (supra) cited by the appellant has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03-10-2024] therefore, the decision cited by the appellant is not a good law. Rather, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) is the law to be complied with, particularly in the case such as the present one. 7.4. The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows. The matter pertains to A.Y. 2017-18. Originally, th…

Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…on in the public domain shows that in the said decision in 'Siemens (supra) cited by the appellant has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 301 Taхтап 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03-10-2024] therefore, the decision cited by the appellant is not a good law. Rather, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) is the law to be complied with, particularly in the case such as the present one. 7.4. The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows. The matter pertains to A.Y. 2017-18. Originally, th…

Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4595/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri Mani Jain a/w Shri Prateek

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68