← All Phrases

“sanctioning authority”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 151426 judgments

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

Leading authorities on sanctioning authority

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.

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.

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.

(P.) Ltd. v. ITO
221 ITR 538 · 1996 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

The sanction of a specified authority under Section 151 is a mandatory procedural check before issuing a notice under Section 148. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent mechanical reopening of assessments and harassment of the assessee.

PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd.
391 ITR 11 · 2017 · High Court
104
citing judgments

Approval for reassessment under Section 151 requires the approving authority to apply its mind and form an opinion, not merely endorse it mechanically. Additions under Section 68 cannot be made based on suspicion alone and require conclusive evidence.

Arjun Singh v. ADIT
246 ITR 363 · 2000 · High Court
102
citing judgments

For a valid reassessment, the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147. A mechanical endorsement like 'I am satisfied' without considering the material amounts to non-application of mind and invalidates the sanction under Section 151.

Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
457 ITR 647 · 2023 · High Court
95
citing judgments

The amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, governing the sanction for reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A, applies to cases initiated under the new reassessment regime. The specified authority for granting such sanction becomes the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT
346 ITR 443 · 2012 · High Court
89
citing judgments

The reassessment proceedings are invalid if the required sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act is not obtained from the statutorily designated authority or if the approval is granted mechanically without due satisfaction. Approval by a higher authority cannot substitute the satisfaction of the authority specified in Section 151.

Judgments citing sanctioning authority

Mahendra Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

before issue of notice u/s 148 from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and sanction ought not to be mechanical and sanctioning authority did apply his mind. Even the ld.AO has not provided sanction order in spite of many request. 5. Objection Not Disposed by Order : (a) That the learned

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Aurangbad vs. Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1339/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1339/Pun/2024

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271DSection 69D

obtained from the authority provided u/s.151 of the Act. The notice u/s.148 of the Act also mentioned PCIT (Central), Pune as the sanctioning authority. (i) Chhugmal Rajpal as υ. S. P. Chaliha [(1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)] (ii) German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT ... available in the ITBA system. (iv) The A.O. as well as the CIT (A) are completely silent on the aspect - (vi why the sanctioning authority mentioned in the notice u/s.148 of the Act is PCIT (Central), Pune, if the correct sanctioning authority to both the authorities was PCIT(Central), Nagpur

Vibhu Prakash Bansal, Bijnor vs. DCIT Central, Moradabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid

ITA 2302/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka .Y R.: 2015-16 Vibhu Prakash Bansal (Huf), Vs. Dcit (Central), Sarrafa Bazaar, Dhampur, Moradabad Aayaka Bhawan, Civil Uttar Pradesh -246761 (Pan: Aabhv3649H) Lines, Moradabad Uttar Pradesh-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 44ASection 69

report relating to examination/investigation o f seized material and issues unearthed during search have been stately considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority had in effect abdicated its statutory functions and delightfully relegated its statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT, was supposed

Sewaa Path Sanstha, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee society in ITA

ITA 75/RPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 74 & 75/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: Na)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Menghani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakhar Viplava Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

show cause Sewaa Path Sanstha Vs. CIT(E), Bhopal to clarify the discrepancies if any have been issued by the sanctioning authority. 7. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the documents on record and facts and circumstances of the case. We find that

Sewaa Path Sanstha, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee society in ITA

ITA 74/RPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 74 & 75/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: Na)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Menghani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakhar Viplava Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

show cause Sewaa Path Sanstha Vs. CIT(E), Bhopal to clarify the discrepancies if any have been issued by the sanctioning authority. 7. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the documents on record and facts and circumstances of the case. We find that

Cyrus Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4350/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

quashed.” 6. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and find that on legality of the notice u/s 148 vis-a-vis sanctioning authority,the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the above mentioned decision of hon’ble Apex Court(supra) which has been elaborately considered

DCIT 42 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4599/MUM/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 68

aside the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and consequent notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on the issue of sanctioning authority u/s 151 of the Act without considering provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and CBDT's Instruction

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Cec-Itd Cem-Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Cec-Itd Cem-Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5226/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 133ASection 147Section 148A

such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Cec-Itd Cem-Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

ITA 5225/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
Section 133ASection 147Section 148ASection 37(1)

such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Cec-Itd Cem-Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5224/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Cec-Itd Cem-Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5223/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2022-23
Section 133ASection 147Section 148A

such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value

Cec- Itd Cem Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 4681/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value

Cec - Itd Cem Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4680/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value

Cec- Itd Cem Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4679/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value

Cec-Itd Cem Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4678/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value

Cec- Itd Cem Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4677/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

such contingencies are as under: a) Additional costs arising from or in connection with the Contract b) Indemnification of Client c) Costs of sanctioning authority d) Protection for loss or damage to construction equipment e) Legal risk that could have a negative impact on Assessee or asset's value

Patel Kelavani Mandal, Tapovan Shaikshnik Sankul vs. The ITO (Exemption), Ward - 2, Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/RJT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 278/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Patel Kelavani Mandal, Junagadh. Vs. The Ito (E), Ward – 2, Tapovan Shaikshnik Sankul, Aaykar Bhavan, Bilkha Road, Race Course Ring Road, Junagadh - 362001 Rajkot - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtp7542H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

within the meaning of Explanation 2(a) to section 147 of the Act. In view of the matter, after obtaining prior approval of the sanctioning authority u/s. 151 of the Act, the AO issued a notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2017, requiring the assessee to file return of income

Income Tax Officer Ward Hingoli Camp at Parbhani, Parbhani vs. Rajaram Ramswarup Jaju, Selu Parbhani

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

ITA 1882/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1882/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Ward Hingoli Camp At Vs. Rajaram Ramswarup Parbhani, Parbhani. Jaju, 223, Jaju Industries Atre Nagar, Selu, Parbhani- 431503. Pan : Aakpj4951H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.35//Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1882/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajaram Ramswarup Jaju, Vs. Ito, Ward Hingoli 223, Jaju Industries Atre Camp At Parbhani, Nagar, Selu, Parbhani. Parbhani- 431503. Pan : Aakpj4951H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Assessee By : Shri Anand R. Partani & Shri Darshan R. Gattani Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Anand R. Partani &For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Financials (Supra), Sidhmicro Equities (P) Ltd. (Supra) and confirmed by the Apex Court that any notice issued without the sanction of the correct sanctioning authority will be invalid. This court in Godrej Industries Limited v. DCIT 16 has held that an assessment can be reopened under section

Rakesh Mulchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 6598/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Due Date For Filing The Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Viz. 31/03/2017, Thereby The Notice U/S.148 & Consequential Reassessment Order Passed U/S.147 Is Bad In Law;

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has held that this amounts to non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer as well as by the sanctioning authority. No reason to believe could have been formed by Ld. Assessing Officer with respect to escapement of income prior to the date for filing