← All Phrases

“borrowed satisfaction”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1471,326 judgments

HIMANSHU DAKSHESHKUMAR KATWALA,KHAMBHAT ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik J Raval & Vivek D Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

which is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. The reopening under section 147 is invalid as it is based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. 3. The reasons recorded do not establish any live nexus between the appellant and the alleged

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1), MOHALI vs. SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KHRAR PUNJAB

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

that the findings of Ld. AO were in the nature of ‘reasons to suspect’ and not‘reasons to believe’. The case was reopened on borrowed satisfaction. There was no link between the tangible material and formation of reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment. However

SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,KHARAR, RUPNAGAR vs. DCIT WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH JAO ITO 6(1) MOHALI, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1066/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

that the findings of Ld. AO were in the nature of ‘reasons to suspect’ and not‘reasons to believe’. The case was reopened on borrowed satisfaction. There was no link between the tangible material and formation of reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment. However

ACIT-17(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SUNIL GIRIDHAR RAHEJA HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7560/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

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

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

brought to the notice of the assessing officer as well as of this appellate authority. 6. In such circumstances, an addition made merely on borrowed satisfaction and without independent verification of both the parties cannot be sustained. Reliance solely on the general statement of a third party, without linking material

GRANULES INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1289/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

then it is a case of non-application of mind to relevant materials and formation of belief of escapement of assessment, but purely on borrowed satisfaction which is not permissible under law. In this regard, he relied upon certain judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

PBG INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 2890/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpbg International Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-19(1), C.R. Building, Cb-4B, Dda Flats, Vs. Delhi-110002. Munirka, Delhi-110067. Pan-Aabcp8752E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Goyal, Ca Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By 20.01.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income On 14.10.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,670/- Along With Computation Of Income, Auditors' Report & Audited Accounts Of The Assessee. Ld. Ao On Basis Of Incriminating & Tangible Information & After Following Due Process, Re-Opened Pbg International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 690

Bench of ITAT for adjudication as under 6.1 The learned AO has erred in reopening of the case of the assessee on "borrowed satisfaction', on the basis of Information available on the 'Insight portal of the department, without doing any independent enquiry at his end, and without forming his "reason

QMIN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1777/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

providing accommodation entries and therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 was justified. 7. With regard to the ground alleging borrowed satisfaction, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessment had been framed under section 143(3) of the Act after examination of details

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. DCIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 86/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13
For Respondent: \nShri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

basis of information received from ITO (Investigation)\nunit-1, Kolkata, the notice for re-assessment had been issued on the basis\nof borrowed satisfaction. This was nothing but only change of opinion and\nthe current re-assessment proceedings had been for current investigation\ni.e. second inning.\nNone of the above

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2362/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"ए\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nPUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE\nBEFORE

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2361/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"ए\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nPUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE\nBEFOREDR.DIPAK

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2360/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"ए\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nPUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE\nBEFORE

DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDRABAD vs. KALPTARU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1077/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147

that on the facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase, the reasons recorded for reopening the\nassessment was based on borrowed satisfaction and\nthe AO did not objectively apply his own mind to the\npurported information received by him and therefore,\nthe proceedings initiated u/s 147 ought ... Assessing Officer\nshows non-application of mind without conducting any\nindependent enquiry or satisfaction of the Assessing Officer\nand therefore, the reopening based on borrowed satisfaction\nis not sustainable in law. In support of his contention, he has\nrelied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase

EAST DELHI LEASING P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7917/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

valid information at all\nfor Initiating reassessment. It was also pointed out that the reasons were recorded\nby the Id. AO based on borrowed satisfaction of Suspicious Transaction Report\n(STR) received by the Id. AO and there was no independent application of mind\non the part ... statement. The AO did not apply\nhis independent mind to that complaint of the Investigation Wing and on the\nbasis of a mis-understood borrowed satisfaction launched the reassessment\nproceedings. In doing so, the AO contravened the rules and principles\nenunciated in this regard by the Delhi High Court

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

details and documents available on record before granting such approval and that, the reasons recorded by him while according the approval merely reflects a borrowed satisfaction from the CIT(E). The screenshot of the relevant extract of approval memo has been pasted hereunder for your reference: Page ... 612/RJT/2025 Dff Shri Gandhi Maulana Azas Shramjivi Ashra but the designated authority must reflect independent application of mind and not merely a borrowed satisfaction. 12. Reliance is placed on: Union Of India vs Rajeev Bansal [2024] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

details and documents available on record before granting such approval and that, the reasons recorded by him while according the approval merely reflects a borrowed satisfaction from the CIT(E). The screenshot of the relevant extract of approval memo has been pasted hereunder for your reference: Page ... 612/RJT/2025 Dff Shri Gandhi Maulana Azas Shramjivi Ashra but the designated authority must reflect independent application of mind and not merely a borrowed satisfaction. 12. Reliance is placed on: Union Of India vs Rajeev Bansal [2024] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal

INFINITY INTERNATIONAL,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 518/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalinfinity International, Nfac, Delhi Vs. H-611, Titanium City Centre, Present Jurisdiction 100 Ft. Anandnagar Road, Ito, Ward 3(3)(1), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [Pan: Aaefi 2610 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 250Section 68

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed as the same are based merely on borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It was contended that the reasons recorded do not specify ... that the reasons recorded were faulty as they were : i. Incorrect reasons ii. Failed to specify the nature of transactions, iii. Based on borrowed satisfaction, iv. Lack of independent application of mind, v. Absence of tangible material, vi. Inadequacy of live-link between the information and reasons 8.2 We have

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

ITA 3101/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Learned CIT(A) ought to have quashed the reassessment order, as the Learned Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind, thereby vitiating the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. 5. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

ITA 3100/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Learned CIT(A) ought to have quashed the reassessment order, as the Learned Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind, thereby vitiating the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. 5. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have

PRIMEGOLD STEEL AND POWER LIMITED, CLUB ROAD PUNJABI BAGH EXTENSION,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 5257/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 147

inter alia including no failure on part of the assessee to disclose material facts, lack of enquiry in allegations before recording reasons, case of borrowed satisfactions, etc. A perusal of para-7 of the appellate order alludes that there has been no application of mind on the part

RITESH MADNANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 61/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.58, 59, 60 & 61/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Ritesh Madnani Psm-4, Nacharani Bhawan, Jeevan Petrol Pump, Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adwpm2804K

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 153D

application of mind and reasoning while issuing such approval and in the present case, the entire approval, as apparent, is only based on the borrowed satisfaction from the A.O and that there has been no independent application of mind by the competent authority while providing the said statutory approval which ... Kumar Agrawal; and (ii) Sr. No. 2: Smt. Mamta Agrawal and Sr.No.2 is the appellant assessee before this Bench. Rather, it is only borrowed satisfaction from the A.O due to which the approval u/s.153D of the Act was granted summarily in the case of the assessee which vitiates such

Showing 1–20 of 1,326 · Page 1 of 67

...