“order under section 148A(d)”

Novanet India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward Ward 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

said information the AO initiated the proceedings under section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and after passing the order under section 148A(d) issued a notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee submitted that the amount paid by the assessee to NSPL is towards

Ra Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

reasons recorded) on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. Thereafter, order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29/07/2022 which was followed by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 30/07/2022. The reassessment proceedings ... merits. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The contention of the Assessee is that order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was issued after obtaining approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income

Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri, Navi Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Navi Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UOI vs Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022. The Ld.AO subsequently, passed order under section 148A(d) on 29/07/2022, rejecting the objections raised by the assessee with regard to the alleged bogus transaction. 2.3 The Ld.AO issued notice 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 13 ITA No. 4499/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri

Russell Adrian Rodrigues, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No98/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Russel Adrian Rodrigues, Vs. Ito, Ward-23(3)(1), 101, Diiago, “B” Sherly Ranjan Mumbai Road, Bandra West, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Adwpr 7259 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Impugned Order Dated 28/12/2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: – 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal On Account Of Non-Compliance Of Section 249(4)(A) & 249(4)(B) Of The It Act., 1961 Completely Disregarding The Fact That Assessee Has Filed The Return & Paid The Due Tax Thereon As Mentioned In The Column 8.1 Of The Appeal Form No. 35. The Appellant Therefore Prays To Remand Back The Matter To Hon. Cit(A) For A Fresh Adjudication On Merits.

directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.O.I. v/s Ashish Agarwal, in Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2022, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed after analysing the details/information available on record. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/07/2022. However

Abdul Saeed Issak Mulla, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

dropped.” ADDITIONAL GROUNDS “ 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order under Section 148A(d) and issuing the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the Pr. CIT-27. Mumbai which was not the correct specified ... 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. 8 Abdul Saeed Issak Mulla These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits

Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

taxmann.com 64. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order under Section 148A(d) and issuing the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the Pr. CIT, Mumbai-8 which was not the correct 'specified ... 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

Totalenergies Marketing Services, France vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

dropped.” ADDITIONAL GROUNDS “ 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order under Section 148A(d) and issuing the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the Pr. CIT-27. Mumbai which was not the correct specified ... 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. 8 Abdul Saeed Issak Mulla These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

issued for both the years under consideration. The Ld.AO ITA No.2765 & 2766/Mum/2024 5 A.Y.2016-18 thus completed the procedure and an order under section 148A(d) was issued to the assessee on 23/06/2022 as a consequence of which notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 23/06/2022 for assessment

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius ) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

issued for both the years under consideration. The Ld.AO ITA No.2765 & 2766/Mum/2024 5 A.Y.2016-18 thus completed the procedure and an order under section 148A(d) was issued to the assessee on 23/06/2022 as a consequence of which notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 23/06/2022 for assessment