“order under section 148A(d)”

ITO-34.2.1, Mumbai vs. Mangal Suresh Karkhanis, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is,

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai, who had no jurisdiction to do so. Accordingly, it was contended that the order under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 are vitiated ab initio. 4. In this regard, the Ld. AR drew attention to the substituted provisions of section

Sapana Rajendra Kumar Marathe, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

assessee was required to respond to the said notice. Since the assessee did not respond the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) and also issued a notice under section 148 on 16.07.2022. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act i.e. ex-parte ... case of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the said notice was deemed as notice issued under section 148A(b). The AO after passing the order under section 148A(d) issued the notice under section 148 dated 16.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said notice is barred by limitation

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4504/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17

void. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-27, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified ... notice under section 148A(b) the assessee filed its response vide reply dated 02/06/2022, 07/06/2022. 2.3 The Ld.AO subsequently, passed order under section 148A(d) on 22/07/2022, rejecting the objections raised by the 4 ITA No. 4504/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Sudhir Damji Bharani assessee. Accordingly notice under section

Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

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

Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

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

Tukaram Vinayak, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Thane

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Consequently, the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed; 2.4. The CIT(A) AO failed to appreciate that the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act without a valid sanction are bad in law. The AO failed to appreciate that

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Inventure Growth & Securities Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

rigged prices, not supported by financial fundamentals. Relying on this report, notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 26.05.2022. Thereafter, an order under section 148A(d) was passed on 30.06.2022, and notice under section 148 was issued. In response, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.07.2022, declaring

Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal (Civil appeal No.3005/2022). The AO subsequently passed the order under section 148A(d) on 26.07.2022 after rejecting the objections raised by the assessee with regard to the impugned transactions. The AO also issued notice under section ... case of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the said notice was deemed as notice issued under section 148A(b). The AO after passing the order under section 148A(d) issued the notice under section 148 dated 26.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said notice is barred by limitation