← All Phrases

“order under section 148A(d)”

ReassessmentSection 148ASection 148A771 judgments

The decision most relied on for order under section 148A(d) is Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1), cited in 524 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on order under section 148A(d)

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
466 ITR 474 · 2024 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Reassessment notices under Section 148A, issued in the context of faceless assessment proceedings, must be issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer and not by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO
165 Taxmann.com 581 · 2024 · High Court
50
citing judgments

The issuance of a notice under section 148A, including the order under section 148A(d), is a mandatory procedural step before reassessment proceedings can be initiated under section 147/148. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the subsequent reassessment proceedings invalid.

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
463 ITR 702 · 2024 · High Court
32
citing judgments

The validity of sanction for issuing orders under section 148A(d) and notices under section 148 must be tested with reference to the amended section 151. If sanction is not granted by an authority specified under section 151(ii), such orders and notices are invalid and liable to be quashed.

Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT
164 Taxmann.com 414 · 2024 · High Court
31
citing judgments

An order passed under Section 148A(d) and subsequent proceedings are void if the Assessing Officer provides insufficient opportunity for the assessee to file a reply before issuing the notice under Section 148A(b).

Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
159 Taxmann.com 178 · 2024 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Where more than three years have expired from the end of a relevant assessment year, the sanctioning authority under section 151(ii) for reassessment proceedings must be the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner. An order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 based on the latter's approval are liable to be quashed.

Core Logistic Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
175 Taxmann.com 453 · 2025 · High Court
26
citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is the specified authority for issuing a notice under Section 148 within three years when the amount involved exceeds fifty lakhs, as per Section 151(i) and Section 149(1). An order under Section 148A(d) requires approval from such a specified authority.

Royal Bitumen (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
164 Taxmann.com 606 · 2024 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Orders passed under section 148A(d) and subsequent reassessment proceedings are vitiated if the Assessing Officer fails to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before issuing the notice.

Judgments citing order under section 148A(d)

Chinthalapudi Ramakrishna, Khammam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kothagudem

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

ITA 473/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

noticed substantial transactions aggregating to Rs.136,25,180/- in the Andhra Bank account of the assessee. Accordingly, after passing an order under section 148A(d) on 25.04.2022, the Ld. AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 26.04.2022. In response, the assessee filed his return of income ... Officer (“JAO”) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”). He invited our attention to copies of notice issued under section 148A(b), order under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 of the Act placed at page nos.1 to 5 of the paper book. However

Hanmandlu Pampati, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.228/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2013-14) 1. Shri Srinivas Pampati, Karimnagar. Pan: Abopp0603R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar. आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.229/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2013-14) 2. Shri Hanmandlu Pampati, Karimnagar. Pan: Abmpp0324R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri Lalith Kishore Sharma, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: | Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख /Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : These Two Appeals Are Filed By Shri Srinivas Pampati & Shri Hanmandlu Pampati ("The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)"), Dated 04.12.2024 & 05.12.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2013-14. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessees Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kishore SharmaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 154Section 48Section 54F

reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). After passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.07.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed

Srinivas Pampati, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kishore SharmaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54F

reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). After passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.07.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers vs. Soni Ajay Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3841/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri G. V. GindeFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 250

148A(b) of the Act. ITA No.3841/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 4 6. Rejecting the objections filed by the assessee on 08.06.2022, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 31.07.2022 declaring that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148A ... provides that no such approval shall be required where the AO, with the prior approval of the Specified Authority, has passed the order under section 148A(d) of the Act. Further, Explanation 3 clarifies that the Specified Authority for the purpose of section 148 shall be the Specified Authority

Shri Malkiat Singh, Delhi vs. CIT(Appeal), Delhi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4366/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhshri Malkiat Singh, Vs.Ito, Ward 45(1), Wz 46/3B, Krishna Puri, New Delhi Gali No. 1, Tilak Nagar, Delhi – 110 018 (Pan:Bsrps2158H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 149(1)(b)Section 194C

supra) wherein, it was held that where the Assessing 6 | P a g e Officer issued reopening notice by passing order under Section 148A(d) of the Act after expiry of three years from the end of relevant assessment year on the ground that the assessee made undisclosed cash deposit

Huawei International Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT-Circle 2(1)(1), Intl. Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of 7

ITA 2648/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh & Sa 298/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Huawei International Pte. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 51, Change Business Park, Circle-2(1)(1), Central-2, #07-08, The International Signature, Singapore Taxation, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacch3694N Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv Shri Yash Nagar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. s. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

other parties remained unexplained and proceeded to entertain a belief that income of the Assessee had escaped assessment after passing an order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 27-7-2022 which is as under:- “Sir/Madam/ M/s, Subject: Proceedings u/s 148A(d) in consequence ... with the prior approval of the Specified authority as per section 148A r.w.s 151 of the Income Tax Act.” From the above order under section 148A(d) of the Act passed by the 4. Learned AO, it could be seen that the assessment was sought to be reopened only

Late Shri Jitendra Nagar Through His L/R Smt. Deepika Nagar, Baran vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Baran, Baran

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

Accordingly, after taking necessary approval from the Competent Authority, notice under section 148 dated 25.07.2022 along with order under section 148A(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee through ITBA Portal. The assessee had not filed any response to the show cause notice issued under section ... officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section

Baburao Ravji Chavan, Dombivli vs. Assessing Officer, Kalyan

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2009/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68ASection 69A

documentary evidences in respect of the same. As the submission of the assessee were not verifiable, the same was not accepted and order under section 148A(d) was passed on 4 ITA No. 2009/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19 Baburao Ravji Chavan 08/04/2022, followed by issuance of notice under section

Income Tax Officer, I P Estate vs. Bansal Insulation Products Pvt Ltd., Okhla Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as

ITA 2892/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2892/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bansal Insulation Products P. Ltd. C.R. Building, C-54/3, Okhla Industrial Area, I.P. Estate, Delhi. Phase-Ii, Delhi. Pan No.Aaacb5035F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Co No.79/Del/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2892/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Bansal Insulation Products P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, C-54/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Vs. C.R. Building, Phase-Ii, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aaacb5035F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

dated 31" March, 2021 was issued or dispatched beyond the limitation period, or on or after 01 April, 2021. parties, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 28th July, 2022 are set aside and the present

Rangsons Schuster Technologies Private Limited, Mandya vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)& Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 1490/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.9, Hebbal Ii Nd Phase Viadb Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, Belagolahobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. Pan : Aafcr 4493 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 195BSection 40

information received in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the CBDT and as per the reason mentioned in the Order under section 148A(d) of the Act, it was noted that assessee had remitted payment of Rs.49,39,468/- during the Financial Year 2017-18 to the foreign company

Rajinder Prashad, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 5393/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5393/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Rajinder Prashad, Vs Income Tax Officer, Bd-4, 2Nd Floor, Pitampura, Ward-47(1), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpp2498A Assessee By: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca & Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Sinha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Piyush Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

days, the AO had, by virtue of the fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, seven days to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act (which was necessarily required to accompany a notice under Section 148 of the Act). The said period expired ... tested, it is evident that sanction was not granted by an authority specified under clause (ii) of section 151. Hence, the orders under section 148A(d) and the notices under section 148 are quashed. As a corollary, the draft assessment orders under section 144B/144C cannot survive and are also quashed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ambalia Hitesh Chhaganlal HUF, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1429/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68

Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. [Para 20] Admittedly, in this case, the approval/sanction for order under section 148A(d) has been granted by the Principal Commissioner. The entire controversy is, therefore, (a) whether the Principal Commissioner was the specified authority, who could

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ambalia Hitesh Chhaganlal HUF, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1428/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68

Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. [Para 20] Admittedly, in this case, the approval/sanction for order under section 148A(d) has been granted by the Principal Commissioner. The entire controversy is, therefore, (a) whether the Principal Commissioner was the specified authority, who could

546 Sulur Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Socirty, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 4(1), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal and the Stay application of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2159/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay546 Sulur Primary Agriculture Co- I.T.O., Operative Credit Society, Vs. Non-Corp Ward 4(1), 61, Town Corporation Street, 67A Race Course Road, Sulur S.O. Rajkamal Tex, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. Coimbatore-641402 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aaaaz 0534 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessing Officer after getting approval of the ld. PCIT, Coimbatore-1. Since there was no response from the assessee, an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 31/03/2022 with the approval of ld. PCIT, Coimbatore-1 and finally, a notice under Section

T.C. 30 Thothukudi Port Aluvalar Co-Op Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Thoothukudi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tutucorin

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

ITA 1945/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1945/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 T.C. 30, Thoothukudi Port Aluvalar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward 1, Thoothukudi 628 004. Tuticorin. [Pan:Aagat3402L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. In The Grounds Of Appeal, Besides Challenging Assumption Of Jurisdiction Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

previous relevant to the AY 2018-19, but, however, did not file return of income. Following due procedure, the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 26.04.2022 and the case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Since there ... confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate drew our attention to the order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 26.04.2022 passed by the jurisdiction Assessing Officer placed at page 1 of the paper. He also drew our attention

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1682/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) on the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) on the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d ... deemed to be notice under section 148A(b) of the Act and the order under section 1 and the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 48A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 July 2022. Following that, a notice under section

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1681/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) on the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) on the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d ... deemed to be notice under section 148A(b) of the Act and the order under section 1 and the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 48A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 July 2022. Following that, a notice under section

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1680/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) on the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) on the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d ... deemed to be notice under section 148A(b) of the Act and the order under section 1 and the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 48A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 July 2022. Following that, a notice under section

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1679/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) on the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) on the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d ... deemed to be notice under section 148A(b) of the Act and the order under section 1 and the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 48A(d) of the Act was passed on 29 July 2022. Following that, a notice under section

Puvvada Veera Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 952/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Pranay Sharma
Section 148ASection 40A(3)

income. The assessee is Page 2 of 4 in the business of Real Estate. There being no return of income, the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 23.03.2022 and the notice under sec 148 was issued on 25.03.2022. The assessee in response to the notice