← All Phrases

“reassessment proceedings”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1518,150 judgments

The decision most relied on for reassessment proceedings is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reassessment proceedings

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court
721
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT
336 ITR 136 · 2011 · High Court
398
citing judgments

In reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, the Assessing Officer can assess other income not specified in the original notice if the initial ground for reopening assessment is found to be valid. However, if the income for which the assessment was initially reopened is found not to have escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to assess any other income.

Judgments citing reassessment proceedings

Basant Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2750/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbasant Jain, Vs. Dcit, C-119, Shivaji Park, Central Circle-29, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adbpj2416P

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

illegal documents which becomes fatal to the very assumption of jurisdiction for reopening the assessment. Hence, we have no hesitation to conclude that the reassessment proceedings are to be quashed as void ab initio. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are hereby allowed. 11. Since ... reassessment proceedings are quashed, the adjudication of other grounds on merits become academic in nature and they are left open. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/07/2025. - - (C. N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25/07/2025 A K Keot

S.A.Propcon P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6370/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.6369/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 148

assessee has raised one legal ground, i.e., non-disposal of the objection filed by the assessee before the AO in response to the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, initiated by the AO u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the assessment proceedings are null

S.A.Propcon P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6369/DEL/2018[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.6369/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 148

assessee has raised one legal ground, i.e., non-disposal of the objection filed by the assessee before the AO in response to the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, initiated by the AO u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the assessment proceedings are null

S.A. Propcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5619/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.6369/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 148

assessee has raised one legal ground, i.e., non-disposal of the objection filed by the assessee before the AO in response to the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, initiated by the AO u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the assessment proceedings are null

S.A. Propcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5618/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.6369/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 148

assessee has raised one legal ground, i.e., non-disposal of the objection filed by the assessee before the AO in response to the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, initiated by the AO u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the assessment proceedings are null

Rameshwari Agro Services Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 188/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.187&188/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rameshwari Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………....Appellant C/O Lakshman Prasad & Kamlesh Kr. Yadav (Directors), Jai Gurudev Automobile, Gaya Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824113. [Pan: Aahcr9701K] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………………….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 29.07.24 & 31.07.24 Passed By The Nfac ["Cit(A)"]. Since The Issues Involved In Ita Nos.187 & 188/Patna/2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Are Identical Except For Figures & Assessment Years, Both Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Facts Are First Taken From Ita No.187/Patna/2025. 2. Ita No. 187/Patna/ 2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

filed a return claiming a loss of Rs.388,487, but the same was held to be invalid by the Assessing Officer. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish relevant bank statements for the relevant financial year, i.e, 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, though details for unrelated years were filed

Rameshwari Agro Services Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 187/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.187&188/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rameshwari Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………....Appellant C/O Lakshman Prasad & Kamlesh Kr. Yadav (Directors), Jai Gurudev Automobile, Gaya Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824113. [Pan: Aahcr9701K] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………………….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 29.07.24 & 31.07.24 Passed By The Nfac ["Cit(A)"]. Since The Issues Involved In Ita Nos.187 & 188/Patna/2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Are Identical Except For Figures & Assessment Years, Both Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Facts Are First Taken From Ita No.187/Patna/2025. 2. Ita No. 187/Patna/ 2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

filed a return claiming a loss of Rs.388,487, but the same was held to be invalid by the Assessing Officer. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish relevant bank statements for the relevant financial year, i.e, 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, though details for unrelated years were filed

Dinesh Baranwal, East Champaran vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Motihari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand allowed

ITA 593/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Dinesh Baranwal……………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/ M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C. R Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kol-72. [Pan: Adkpg6603N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Motihari…...……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24 , 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 57 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Dealer Of A Telecom Service Operator, Namely M/S Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt.

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

allowed. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the A.O from initiating fresh penalty proceedings, if warranted, after completion of the reassessment proceedings in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand allowed. Kolkata, the 24th July, 2025. [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy

Arcpl Developers Private Limited, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 731/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 156A(1)Section 5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Income Tax Officer, Sikar vs. Bhaskar Chauhan, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 868/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

assessee during search and enclosed copy of those documents requesting him to take appropriate action under section 153C/148 – Thereupon, Assessing officer having initiated reassessment proceeding under section 148 passed an assessment order – Assesee took an additional ground of appeal to effect that reassessment proceedings initiated by Assessing officer under section ... section 153A – He further held that since Assessing officer had not followed procedure laid down under section 153C, notice issued under section 148 and reassessment proceedings became illegal and void above said-initio. Whether on facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside reassessment proceedings – Held yes (in favour

Bhaskar Chouhan, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar

ITA 533/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

assessee during search and enclosed copy of those documents requesting him to take appropriate action under section 153C/148 – Thereupon, Assessing officer having initiated reassessment proceeding under section 148 passed an assessment order Assesee took an additional ground of appeal to effect that reassessment proceedings initiated by Assessing officer under section ... section 153A He further held that since Assessing officer had not followed procedure laid down under section 153C, notice issued under section 148 and reassessment proceedings became illegal and void above said-initio. Whether on facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside reassessment proceedings – Held yes (in favour

Shri Salasar Balaji Developers Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, relevant grounds mentioned above are also allowed in toto

ITA 1188/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarshri Salasar Balaji Developers Private Limited, A-13-14, Shyam Nagar, Benar Road, Nadi Ka Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur 302012 Pan No. Aaics 7960C ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

appeal:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the assessee appellant. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessee has raised six grounds in the appeal. Ground No.1 challenges the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act. Ground No. 2-4 challenges the addition of Rs. 13, 25, 35,000/- confirmed by NFAC under section 68 of the Act on account of alleged

Poonam Sen, Lucknow vs. ITO, Range 1(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 70/LKW/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 Poonam Sen, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/73, Viram Khand, Gomti Range-1(3), Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Pan: Bacps7483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Lucknow Dated 4.08.2020, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito-1(3), Lucknow, Passed Under Section 147/144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Has Erred In Law, In Confirming Order U/S 147/144 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961 In The Present Case As The Notice Issued U/S 148 By The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly (Here-In After Referred To As The Ito, Bareilly) Was Issued Without Any Jurisdiction & Thus As The Notice So Issued U/S 148 Itself Is Issued Without Jurisdiction The Culmination Of The Same In The Present Order Is Void-Ab- Initio & Bad-In-Law & Thus The Order May Kindly Be Annulled. Ii. On The Fact & In The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Present Case The Reasons So Recorded By The Ito, Bareilly Itself Are Vitiated As The Appellant Had Made A True & Fair Disclosure & That The Investment So Made Cannot Be Disclosed In The Return So Filed & Further As Per The Reasons Recorded The Income Escaping Assessment Is Of Rs.65,73,000/- & Whereas The Addition Towards Purchase Has Been Made Of Rs.16,92,000/- Only & Thus The Addition Is Devoid Of Any Merit & Needs To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Grounds Nos. I & Ii Above:

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Omprakash Daruka, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 685/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.685/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Omprakash Daruka, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Acqpd 1122 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 149Section 151

case of the assessee. It was the prayer that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is liable to be quashed and the reassessment proceedings is also liable to be quashed. 6. In reply, ld Sr. DR submitted that this a case of penny stock and he also vehemently supported ... coordinate bench of the Tribunal, being Division Bench, in the case of assessee’s wife namely Anju Daruka (supra), has already quashed the reassessment proceedings which are identical and in verbatim to the reasons recorded in the assessee’s case, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 222/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

finding and consequent dismissal of the contention of the appellant in this regard is absolutely illegal, invalid and bad and as such the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed and/or set aside. V. FOR THAT the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the validity of notice under Section ... aside on this ground also. VI. FOR THAT the entire material in support of the purported information on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings was initiated having not been supplied to the appellant, the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the validity of such assessment proceedings on the basis

Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1946/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

finding and consequent dismissal of the contention of the appellant in this regard is absolutely illegal, invalid and bad and as such the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed and/or set aside. V. FOR THAT the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the validity of notice under Section ... aside on this ground also. VI. FOR THAT the entire material in support of the purported information on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings was initiated having not been supplied to the appellant, the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the validity of such assessment proceedings on the basis

Ajit Kumar, Bangalore vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/BANG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kit(It)A No.449/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 239(1)

issued to the assessee on 27.06.2023. Thereafter, other statutory notices were issued on different dates. During the course of reassessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had purchased immovable property in 2008 for a consideration of Rs.21,72,722/- as land cost and paid Rs.78,76345/- as construction cost ... while filing response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, assessee claimed refund of Rs.2,63,670/-. The AO observed that the reassessment proceedings are for the benefit of the Revenue and not for the benefit of the assessee if the assessee had not stated while claiming

Sunita Ramesh Dhanani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3443/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Sunita Ramesh Dhanani Ito – 22(3)(6), Mumbai 9 Alankarchs, Senapatibapat Marg Vs Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400016. Parel, Mumbai – 400012. [Pan No. Ajapd9146R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in upholding the Reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 on incorrect sanction. 1.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC ... erred in upholding reassessment proceedings contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). 1.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Shafiq Ahmed, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shafiq Ahmed, Dy. Cit Circle-41(1)(1), Flat No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Building Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Vs. No. 1 Om Sai Ekta (Sra), (East), Society, Cts No. 216, Gillbert Mumbai-400051. Hill Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aowpa 3264 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hasan Khan, Virtually Present
Section 148Section 148A

after obtaining due approval from 148 was issued on 07.07.2022, after obtaining due approval from the competent authority. nt authority. 2.2 During the reassessment proceedings, multiple statutory During the reassessment proceedings, multiple statutory During the reassessment proceedings, multiple statutory notices were issued between 08.07.2022 and 06.05.2023, which notices were issued ... have been made accordance with law, particularly where additions have been made accordance with law, particularly where additions have been made in ex parte reassessment proceedings. in ex parte reassessment proceedings. 3.3 We also notice that the three notices We also notice that the three notices issued

Packswell Combine Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 234/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarpackswell Combine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner 602, 6Th Floor, Amrit ‘A’ Of Income Tax Officer, Carter Road, Khar Danda, Central Circle 6(4), Khar (W), Mumbai- 400052 Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacp3076C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on invalid sanction u/s 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That the entire reassessment proceedings is void-ab-initio. The Appellant is challenging the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 29/07/2022 especially since