← 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)

Vivog Commercial Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the connected application for stay (IA No

ITA 1631/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ashutosh, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

order in terms of clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act. In the instant case, the assessing officer has passed the order under section 148A(d) dated 7th April, 2022. On a reading of the said order, we find that the assessing officer has indirectly accepted the explanation given ... 148A(b) but would certainly not vest it with the power to issue a re-assessment notice under section 148 post an order under section 148A(d)." 8. As pointed out in the aforesaid mentioned decision, the term "information" in Explanation-1 under section 148 cannot be lightly resorted

Vivog Commercial Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the connected application for stay (IA No

ITA 1630/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ashutosh, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

order in terms of clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act. In the instant case, the assessing officer has passed the order under section 148A(d) dated 7th April, 2022. On a reading of the said order, we find that the assessing officer has indirectly accepted the explanation given ... 148A(b) but would certainly not vest it with the power to issue a re-assessment notice under section 148 post an order under section 148A(d)." 8. As pointed out in the aforesaid mentioned decision, the term "information" in Explanation-1 under section 148 cannot be lightly resorted

Maxis Mobile Services Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2746/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 149Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 56

issued on 28 June 2021. Thereafter, pursuant to the judgment of UOI vs Ashish Agrawal (2022) (444 ITR 1) (SC) order under section 148A(d) was passed. On appeal to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held that as per the new 148 provision, the time to complete

Ava Resources Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3401/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3401/Del/2024, (A.Y.2019-20)

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

deserves to be quashed. (8) That in law and facts of the case, the reopening of assessment notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) having been issued/passed by the Assessing Officer and not the Faceless Assessment Unit contrary to the provisions of section 144B and section 151A

The Society of Jesus Mary Joseph Snehalaya, Mangalagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 369/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 48Section 69Section 69A

Accordingly, the case was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 08.04.2022 after passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act. The assessee has not filed return of income in response to notice issued under section 48 of the Act and also no submission ... needed for Page No. 3 I.T.A. No. 369/VIZ/2024 THE SOCIETY OF JESUS MARY JOSEPH SNEHALAYA notices issued on or after 01.04.2022 where order under section 148A(d) is passed with the prior approval of the specified authority iii. The copy of the approval of the specified authority is not furnished

Chemox Exports Imports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 3954/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3954/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Sarika Tyagi, Ghazibad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghazaibad

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1414/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

amount and Petitioner is not in a position to pay the same. 8. Ms. Agarwal stated that when on the face of order under Section 148A(d) of the Act it could not have been passed, Petitioner who is 75 years old and looking after her 88 years old husband

Yogender Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

amount and Petitioner is not in a position to pay the same. 8. Ms. Agarwal stated that when on the face of order under Section 148A(d) of the Act it could not have been passed, Petitioner who is 75 years old and looking after her 88 years old husband

Naveen Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1412/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

amount and Petitioner is not in a position to pay the same. 8. Ms. Agarwal stated that when on the face of order under Section 148A(d) of the Act it could not have been passed, Petitioner who is 75 years old and looking after her 88 years old husband

DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Yogender Singh, Ghaziabad

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1387/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

amount and Petitioner is not in a position to pay the same. 8. Ms. Agarwal stated that when on the face of order under Section 148A(d) of the Act it could not have been passed, Petitioner who is 75 years old and looking after her 88 years old husband

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Sushil Tyagi, Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1386/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

amount and Petitioner is not in a position to pay the same. 8. Ms. Agarwal stated that when on the face of order under Section 148A(d) of the Act it could not have been passed, Petitioner who is 75 years old and looking after her 88 years old husband

Federation of Rajasthan Trade and Industry, Jaipur vs. ITO-Exemption Ward-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 217/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

bank account and called upon him to file response on or before 23-3-2022 Assessing Officer further passed an order under section 148A(d) on assessee and simultaneously issued notice under section 148 Whether since as per record notice under section 148A(b) was posted

ACIT Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Jmp Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3722/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. K Gopal/ Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Meena Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 154Section 250Section 68

terms of the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act. 8. After rejecting the objections filed by the assessee, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 30/07/2022 declaring that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under section ... then Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 21. Admittedly, in this case, the approval/sanction for order under section 148A(d) of the Act has been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8. The entire controversy is, therefore, (a) whether the Principal

Arihant Engineers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3660/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Akhatar Hussain AnsariSr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250Section 274

then Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 21. Admittedly, in this case, the approval/sanction for order under section 148A(d) of the Act has been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8. The entire controversy is, therefore, (a) whether the Principal ... whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act and such an order under section 148A(d) of the Act has to be passed with the prior approval of the specified authority. The Explanation to section 148A of the Act also

Nilima Kothari, Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Asstt. Centre, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 259/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

date for expiration of limitation for the said AYs would be 31.03.2020 and 31.03.2021. In all cases, the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 has been issued on or after 01.04.2021, i.e., after the expiry of the three (03) year limitation period prescribed under Section ... where, after the exclusion of the timeframe referred to in the third proviso, the time available to the AO for passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is less than seven (7) days. The said proviso states that in such a situation, the remaining timeframe shall stand

ACIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Surya Ferrous Alloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 1407/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 40A(3)

issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) of the Act. ITA No. 1407/MUM/2021 & CO No.762924 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thereafter, order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 26/07/2022 which was followed by the issuance of notice, dated 26/07/2022, under Section

Smt. Kashavva S Rangaraddiyavar, Gadag vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Hubli

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

ITA 1258/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeysmt. Kashavva S Rangaraddiyavar, The Asstt. Commissioner Of Gurlakatti, Kanakikopa, Naragund, Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Vs. Gadag-582207 Tps, Navanagar, Hudli Pan –Eixpr1582R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.09.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

said deposit was made towards repayment of agricultural loan from the accumulated savings from agricultural income of the assessee. Thereafter, the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed by JAO concluding that 3 Smt. Kashavva S Rangaraddiyavar while assessee had stated that the cash deposit of Rs.11

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2557/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 9(1)(vi)

while issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, 148A(b) of the Act and passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act erred in not obtaining prior approval of the competent authority as specified under Section 151 of the Act and therefore the said notices

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2556/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 9(1)(vi)

while issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, 148A(b) of the Act and passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act erred in not obtaining prior approval of the competent authority as specified under Section 151 of the Act and therefore the said notices

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2432/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2017-18]

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

while issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, 148A(b) of the Act and passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act erred in not obtaining prior approval of the competent authority as specified under Section 151 of the Act 3 and therefore the said notices