← All Phrases

“approval under section 151”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 151453 judgments

The decision most relied on for approval under section 151 is CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (64 Taxmann.com 313), cited in 340 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on approval under section 151

CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.
64 Taxmann.com 313 · 2015 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

A mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151, made without independent application of mind, vitiates and renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. Such approvals, often indicated by brief, unreasoned endorsements, lead to the quashing of the reopening of assessment.

Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO
156 Taxmann.com 178 · 2023 · High Court
213
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if the Income Tax Department fails to follow the prescribed procedures, including obtaining the necessary approvals under section 151 or adhering to the faceless assessment scheme mandates under section 151A.

Madhya Pradesh in CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 390 · 2015 · High Court
188
citing judgments

A sanction for issuing a notice under section 148 is invalid if the sanctioning authority grants approval mechanically, merely recording 'Yes, I am satisfied' without proper application of mind to the reasons for reassessment. The authority must demonstrate proper consideration to fulfill the statutory obligation under section 151.

Narayanappa v. CIT
63 ITR 219 · 1967 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

The approval required from a higher authority under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is an administrative act, not a quasi-judicial one. Consequently, an opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the assessee at the stage of obtaining such approval, provided the approving authority is competent.

CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.
345 ITR 223 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the sanction required under Section 151 is obtained mechanically, without independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, or is based on borrowed satisfaction.

Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT
398 ITR 198 · 2017 · High Court
137
citing judgments

Sanction under Section 151 granted in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, vitiates reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148. The court also laid down guidelines for the Revenue to follow when reopening assessments, emphasizing the need to provide reasons and approval documentation to the assessee.

Verma Roadways v. ACIT
75 ITD 183 · 2000 · ITAT
130
citing judgments

Approval for assessment orders requires proper and thorough scrutiny and application of mind by the approving authority, involving an enquiry and judicial approach.

Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC
82 ITR 147 · 1971 · Supreme Court
129
citing judgments

To initiate reassessment under Section 147/148, the Income Tax Officer must have an honest and reasonable 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, based on cogent grounds and not mere suspicion. Reassessment is invalid if based only on a lack of analysis during the original assessment without new material.

Judgments citing approval under section 151

Calance Software Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1441/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Calance Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 14/34 & 36, Dda Shopping Circle-5(2), Complex, Nangalraya, Delhi New Delhi-110046. Pan-Aaccc5176A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Harish Choudhary, Ca, Shri Mohit Choudhary, Ca & Mitika Choudhary, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

material before him for formation of that belief - Held, yes - Whether since in instant, case, there had been application of mind while granting approval under section 151, reopening of assessment was justified -Held, yes [Paras 2 and 3] In the case Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v Additional

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 923/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 148BSection 151

material discrepancy between the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening and the amount mentioned in the Annexure appended to the approval under Section 151 but also the Approving Authority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by AO. This variance indicates non-application ... conducted prior to 1st April 2021.Under the revised framework, the Assessing Officer is now mandatorily required to apply his independent mind while seeking approval under Section 151 from the specified authority. Such approval must be based on the satisfaction that the information discovered during the course of search pertains

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 922/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2019-20
Section 148BSection 151

material discrepancy between the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening and the amount mentioned in the Annexure appended to the approval under Section 151 but also the Approving Authority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by AO. This variance indicates non-application ... conducted prior to 1st April 2021.Under the revised framework, the Assessing Officer is now mandatorily required to apply his independent mind while seeking approval under Section 151 from the specified authority. Such approval must be based on the satisfaction that the information discovered during the course of search pertains

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 921/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 148BSection 151

material discrepancy between the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening and the amount mentioned in the Annexure appended to the approval under Section 151 but also the Approving Authority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by AO. This variance indicates non-application ... conducted prior to 1st April 2021.Under the revised framework, the Assessing Officer is now mandatorily required to apply his independent mind while seeking approval under Section 151 from the specified authority. Such approval must be based on the satisfaction that the information discovered during the course of search pertains

Rosha Alloys P Limited, Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 888/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-2019
Section 148BSection 151

material discrepancy between the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening and the amount mentioned in the Annexure appended to the approval under Section 151 but also the Approving Authority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by AO. This variance indicates non-application ... conducted prior to 1st April 2021.Under the revised framework, the Assessing Officer is now mandatorily required to apply his independent mind while seeking approval under Section 151 from the specified authority. Such approval must be based on the satisfaction that the information discovered during the course of search pertains

Aashiyana Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3033/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanaashiyana Infrastructure Development Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (2), Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.830, Near Asian Hospital, Sector 21A, Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aafca2236A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 28.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012-13 On 28.09.2012 Declaring Income Of Rs.31,22,410/- Which Was Revised On 21.09.2013 At An Income Of Rs.22,16,310/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 10. That the approval under section 151 of the Act is illegal and bad in law as the same is given without application of mind and is also against the mandatory provision

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, approval under section 151 of the Act and date of issue of notice, etc., assessee furnished return submissions. The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from ... learned CIT(A) has dealt the issue regarding date of issuance of notice that the notice was issued on 31.03.2021 with prior approval under section 151 of the Act of the by the competent authority as per prevailing law and he referred to CIT(A)’s Order at para No.5.6.3

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1617/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, approval under section 151 of the Act and date of issue of notice, etc., assessee furnished return submissions. The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from ... learned CIT(A) has dealt the issue regarding date of issuance of notice that the notice was issued on 31.03.2021 with prior approval under section 151 of the Act of the by the competent authority as per prevailing law and he referred to CIT(A)'s Order at para No.5.6.3

Rajiv Kumar Khanna, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 19, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7840/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 151

## IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI ## BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7840/Del/2018

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, approval under section 151 of the Act and date of issue of notice, etc., assessee furnished return submissions. The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from ... learned CIT(A) has dealt the issue regarding date of issuance of notice that the notice was issued on 31.03.2021 with prior approval under section 151 of the Act by the competent authority as per prevailing law and he referred to CIT(A)’s Order at para No.7.1.5. The delivery

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1615/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, approval under section 151 of the Act and date of issue of notice, etc., assessee furnished return submissions. The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from ... learned CIT(A) has dealt the issue regarding date of issuance of notice that the notice was issued on 31.03.2021 with prior approval under section 151 of the Act by the competent authority as per prevailing law and he referred to CIT(A)’s Order at para No.7.1.5. The delivery

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1614/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, approval under section 151 of the Act and date of issue of notice, etc., assessee furnished return submissions. The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from ... learned CIT(A) has dealt the issue regarding date of issuance of notice that the notice was issued on 31.03.2021 with prior approval under section 151 of the Act by the competent authority as per prevailing law and he referred to CIT(A)’s Order at para No.7.1.5. The delivery

Veerendra Kumar Patil, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1658/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, approval under section 151 of the Act and date of issue of notice, etc., assessee furnished return submissions. The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from ... obtained approval from the competenet authority under section 151 of the Act before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. From the approval under section 151 of the Act it is clear that the reason was enclosed as annexure and in the preamble of the 151, the DIN number

Veerendra Kumar Patil, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1657/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, approval under section 151 of the Act and date of issue of notice, etc., assessee furnished return submissions. The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from ... obtained approval from the competent authority under section 151 of the Act before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. From the approval under section 151 of the Act it is clear that the reason was enclosed as annexure and in the preamble of the 151, the DIN number

Veerendra Kumar Patil, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1656/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, approval under section 151 of the Act and date of issue of notice, etc., assessee furnished return submissions. The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from ... obtained approval from the competenet authority under section 151 of the Act before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. From the approval under section 151 of the Act it is clear that the reason was enclosed as annexure and in the preamble of the 151, the DIN number

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 116/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

that where "Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction on proposal of Assessing Officer by mentioning that it is a fit case for issuance of notice, approval under section 151 giving details of approving authority as Principal Commissioner in itself will not make approval invalid", this is altogether on different footing than

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 115/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

that where "Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction on proposal of Assessing Officer by mentioning that it is a fit case for issuance of notice, approval under section 151 giving details of approving authority as Principal Commissioner in itself will not make approval invalid", this is altogether on different footing than

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 114/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

that where "Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction on proposal of Assessing Officer by mentioning that it is a fit case for issuance of notice, approval under section 151 giving details of approving authority as Principal Commissioner in itself will not make approval invalid", this is altogether on different footing than

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 113/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

that where "Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction on proposal of Assessing Officer by mentioning that it is a fit case for issuance of notice, approval under section 151 giving details of approving authority as Principal Commissioner in itself will not make approval invalid", this is altogether on different footing than

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 112/RPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

that where "Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction on proposal of Assessing Officer by mentioning that it is a fit case for issuance of notice, approval under section 151 giving details of approving authority as Principal Commissioner in itself will not make approval invalid", this is altogether on different footing than