Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal

2024 SCC OnLine 754Reported decision2024#2851 most cited

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

The Revenue conceded that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act was not applicable to notices issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16, leading to the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal · 2024 SCC OnLine 754 · section 148 · section 149(1) · reassessment notice · limitation period · AY 2015-16 · revenue concession · special leave petition dismissal

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal

Ravindra Kumar Vishwanath Yadav, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4960/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Ravindrakumar Vishwanath The Ito, Ward 28 (2)(1), Yadav, Tower 6, Vashi Railway Room No.1118, Samta Nagar Vs. Station Commercial Sector 1A, Airoli, Navi, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai – 400708 Navi Mumbai – 400703. Pan – Acbpy0748G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In This Case, The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Vide Assessment Order 11.03.2024 U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144 B Of The Act, Has Made The Addition Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Being Variation In Respect Of Unexplained Investment U/S. 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 3Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Ravindrakumar Vishwanath The ITO, Ward 28 (2)(1), Yadav, Tower 6, Vashi Railway Room No.1118, Samta Nagar Vs. Station Commercial sector 1A, Airoli, Navi, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai – 400708 Navi Mumbai – 400703. PAN – ACBPY0748G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Dharan Gandhi. Revenue by : Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Suncity Infrastructures Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4831/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Lgf-10, Vasant Square Mall, Vs. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaics7928N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Pawan Garg, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10115325 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144B Dated 29.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real State. The Return Of Income Of The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,54,930/- & The Same Was Assessee U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 24.11.2017 Wherein The Income Declared Was Accepted By The Ao. Thereafter, Based On The Information That The Assessee Has Dcit Vs. Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Allotted Preference Shares To One Shri Tarun Agarwal, At 16546/- Per Which Were Not Commensurate With The Financials Of The Company & After Obtaining The Approval Form The Competent Authority Notice Was Issued U/S 148 Dated 31.03.2021 Which Was Served Upon The Assessee On 01.04.2021. Thereafter, Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Rs.11,00,00,000/- Was Made On Account Of Share Premium Treated As Unexplained U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. CIT, Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. LGF-10, Vasant Square Mall, Vs. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. PAN-AAICS7928N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Advocate and Shri Pawan Garg, CA Department by Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Fac…