← 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

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 1233/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

stating "Yes" would by no means suffice the statutory requirement as contemplated inSec. 151of the Act, ie, satisfaction on the part of the sanctioning authority, on the reasons recorded by the A.O, that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act. As provided

Exel Rubber Private Limited, K.V.Rangareddy vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1109/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1106 to 1109 and 1233 of 2025 Exel Rubber Pvt Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1108/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1106 to 1109 and 1233 of 2025 Exel Rubber Pvt Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1106/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1106 to 1109 and 1233 of 2025 Exel Rubber Pvt Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1086/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

case of approval. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in the case of the assessee neither the Assessing Officer nor the sanctioning authority has given any specific reasons for coming to the conclusion that it was a fit case for issuing notice

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1085/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

case of approval. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in the case of the assessee neither the Assessing Officer nor the sanctioning authority has given any specific reasons for coming to the conclusion that it was a fit case for issuing notice

Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, Bhagur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1767/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

that the Assessment Year ("AY") is 2018-19 and, therefore, since more than three years have expired from the end of the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says ... order as well as the notice are issued on 22nd April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted

Megnanapuram Paccs, Tiruchendur vs. PCIT, Madurai

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:895/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society 4/40, Megnanapuram Tiruchendur Road, Tiruchendur Thoothukudi – 628 210. [Pan: Aabam-9847-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit Vs. Madurai - I (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pcit, Madurai - 1, For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Vide Order Dated 17.03.2025. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

u/s.148 of the Act dated 19.04.2022 came to be issued after obtaining sanction from the office of the PCIT, Madurai-1 on 18.04.2022, which sanctioning authority is prescribed in terms of Section 151(i) of the Act, i.e. competent authority for granting sanction :-9-: ITA. No:895/Chny/2025 in terms

Santosh Rani Legal Heir of Late Sh Parveen Kalyan, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4770/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Santosh Rani Vs Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Parveen Ward-1, Karnal, Kalyan, Krishna Nagar, Gamri, Haryana-132001. Thanesar, Distt.-Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118. Pan-Awhpr4944D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

assessment- Tribunal upheld, assessee's cross- objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148-Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment

Arun Duggal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3075/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Arun Duggal, Vs Dcit, 3E-42, Nit, Faridabad, Central Circle-1, Haryana-121001. Faridabad. Pan-Agupd5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.617/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Heard By The Co-Ordinate “E” Bench Of The Tribunal & Was Decided In Terms Of Order Dated 01.04.2022 Wherein Co-Ordinate Bench Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing No.100/Del/2022 U/S 254(2) Of The Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Its Order Dated 09.04.2025 Has Decided The M.A. Filed By Assessee Wherein Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.01.2022 Is Recalled For The Limited Purposes Of Adjudication Of Three Grounds Of Appeal Taken In The Original Form 36. These Grounds Of Appeal Are Bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The Relevant Observations Of The Co-Ordinate Bench In Para 16 Of The Order Of Ma Are As Under:-

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 254(2)Section 68

assessment- Tribunal upheld, assessee's cross-objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148-Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax.) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 862/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

assessment—Tribunal upheld assessee’s cross-objections and dismissed Revenue’s appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148—Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize

Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT(Intl. Tax), Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

assessment—Tribunal upheld assessee’s cross-objections and dismissed Revenue’s appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148—Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize

Vishal Vijay Jaiswal, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1634/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

that the Assessment Year ("AY") is 2018-19 and, therefore, since more than three years have expired from the end of the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says ... order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted

Tulsi Jewellers, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer - Ward 5, Navsari

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 947/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in issuing notice u/s 148 dated 25.07.2022 without obtaining sanction from proper sanctioning authority in view of Rajeev Bansal decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the additional ground in the present appeal ... with respect notice issued u/s 148 on 25.07.2022 without obtaining sanction from specified sanctioning authority is a jurisdictional matter arising from the assessment proceedings and existing records. Further, the ground is also covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajev

Tulsi Jewellers, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Navsari

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 946/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in issuing notice u/s 148 dated 25.07.2022 without obtaining sanction from proper sanctioning authority in view of Rajeev Bansal decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the additional ground in the present appeal ... with respect notice issued u/s 148 on 25.07.2022 without obtaining sanction from specified sanctioning authority is a jurisdictional matter arising from the assessment proceedings and existing records. Further, the ground is also covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajev

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 69A

notice failed to comply with the conditions provided under section 149(1)(b) of the Act. c) it is also sumitted that the sanctioning authority is not the appropriate authority as specified under section 151 of the ACt. 4.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee is challenging validity

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

ITA 4503/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 3(1)Section 69C

Parikh Ld.AR referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra) submitted that the sanctioning authority to issue notice beyond 3years as per section 151(ii) is Principle Chief Commissioner or Principle Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General ... under Section 148. 9. It is categorically clear from the above that a notice that is issued beyond the period of 3 years the sanctioning authority has to be as per section 151(ii) of the Act, which is Principal Chief 14 ITA No.4502/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19 Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh

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

ITA 4502/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 3(1)Section 69C

Parikh Ld.AR referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra) submitted that the sanctioning authority to issue notice beyond 3years as per section 151(ii) is Principle Chief Commissioner or Principle Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General ... under Section 148. 9. It is categorically clear from the above that a notice that is issued beyond the period of 3 years the sanctioning authority has to be as per section 151(ii) of the Act, which is Principal Chief 14 ITA No.4502/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19 Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir, 20(1), Mumbai vs. Amit Sampathraj Shah, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5380/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10Section 143Section 148

been fulfilled. He submitted that as the notice under section 148 was issued under the old regime, beyond 4 years then the sanctioning authority should have been Joint Commissioner. He placed reliance on following decisions in support: “1. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Prabhakar Nerulkar v. PCIT, Panaji

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 63(1), New Delhi

ITA 1435/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

ITA No.1435, 1434, 1433 & 1432/Del/2024 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER