← All Phrases

“specified authority”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 1511,163 judgments

The decision most relied on for specified authority is (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (221 ITR 538), cited in 125 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on specified authority

(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.

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.

CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah
299 ITR 305 · 2008 · High Court
80
citing judgments

During a search operation, the authorized officer recording a statement under Section 132(4) must fully explain Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) to the assessee, particularly the requirement to specify the manner of earning undisclosed income, for a valid claim of penalty immunity. Income not declared or advance tax not paid proportionately before the search date is treated as undisclosed, thereby disallowing advance tax benefits.

Bar Association v. State of U P
6 SCC 267 · 2024 · Supreme Court
70
citing judgments

The Supreme Court, when exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law. This power allows the Court to issue directions that may modify or waive certain procedural mandates, such as those related to reassessment notices.

Dass Khanna v. ITO
460 ITR 546 · 2024 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The authority required to grant prior approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment proceedings varies based on the applicable time limit for reassessment, as limitation is inextricably intertwined with the rank of the specified approving authority.

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.

Vikas Gupta v. Union of India
142 Taxmann.com 253 · 2022 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The signing of a notice or document by the specified authority is a mandatory requirement under section 282A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and cannot be treated as an empty formality. Approval under section 151 requires the signature, name, and designation of the specified authority.

Judgments citing specified authority

Ajay Nagpal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-48(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 8145/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8145/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Ajay Nagpal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 15/10, East Patel Nagar, Ward-48(1), New Delhi-110008 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpn9871D Assessee By: Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1081608419(1) Dated 09.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151

order was issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] on an assumption that the CIT(E) was a specified authority under the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. 8. The AO issued a notice dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 of the Act accompanied ... Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant of approval under Section 151 of the Act depends on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued

Reshma Harbakhsh Singh Through Legal Heir Sh. Vikramaditya Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-28(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6289/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

material on record. Admittedly, the sanction for issue of notice was obtained from the PCIT, Delhi- 10 on 04.04.2022 whereas u/s 151(ii), the specified authority was PCCIT/CCIT as more than 3 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e., 2018-19. 5.1 We further note ... Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and the relevant portion is reproduced as below: “ iii. Sanction of the specified authority 3 | P a g e 6289_DEL_2025 Reshma Harbakhsh Singh through Legal Heir Vikaramaditya Singh VS DCIT 73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power

Nitin Harilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 6536/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

original Notice dated 23-04-2021issued u/s 148 of the Act bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/148/2021- 22/1032654598(1) is without taking prior approval of the Specified Authority mentioned u/s 151(ii) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the approval granted is in mechanical ... wherein the reopening u/s 148A was triggered after three years from the end of relevant assessment year, but approval was not obtained from the specified authority as mandated by the Act, which has been decided in various cases by Hon’ble Mumbai High Court as well as ITAT, Mumbai. Reliance

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1539/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Nos. Assessee Revenue A.Ys 1536 To 1539/ Hyd/2025 Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad Pan:Ckmpk5466J Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1), Hyderabad 2015-16 & 2016-17 निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: || Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: | 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili ("The Assessee") Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151A(1)Section 153

Ordinarily Resident/ Non-Resident Η ΝΟ 11-4-1306/3 RAILWAY QUARTERS, CHILKALGUDA SECUNDERABAD 500025, Andhra Pradesh Date of order COME TAX DEPARTMENT 06/04/2022 Specified authority approval Name PCCIT, AP & TELANGANA Reference No. 100000029535714 Date Order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income ... Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in this case for A.Y. 2015-16. 6. Prior Approval has been accorded by the Specified Authority i.e. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, AP & Telangana, Hyderabad u/s 148A(d) read with Section 151 of the Income

Onus Plantations and Agro Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5004/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 127(2)(a)Section 127(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 68Section 69C

treatment and thus prevents bias, prejudice and arbitrariness. It also prevents and avoids inconsistent and divergent views. The power of approval to the specified authority i.e., Superior authority has been envisaged with the objectives that no illegality or biasness, to either of the sides i.e., the assessee or the Revenue

Anil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Income-tax in column 22 is extracted below: 22 Reasons for according Remarks: Approved under approval/rejection by the section 148A(d) as a fit specified authority to order under case. section 148A(d) and/or issuance Name: Rajat Bansal of notice under section 148 of the Designation :PCCIT, Delhi Income

Kotapaduprimary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 764/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.763 & 764/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kotapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Agricultural Cooperative Ward – 1 Society, Prakasam Ongole Pan:Aabak5758P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A C. Subrahamanyam राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Both Dated 28.02.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19 & A.Y. 2019-20 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A C. SubrahamanyamFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 249(3)

defective notice is bad in law and void ab initio. 3. The notice under section 148 was issued without obtaining prior approval from the specified authority as required under section 151, rendering the proceedings invalid and unsustainable in law”. 4. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) has submitted that

Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 763/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.763 & 764/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kotapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Agricultural Cooperative Ward – 1 Society, Prakasam Ongole Pan:Aabak5758P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A C. Subrahamanyam राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Both Dated 28.02.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19 & A.Y. 2019-20 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A C. SubrahamanyamFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 249(3)

defective notice is bad in law and void ab initio. 3. The notice under section 148 was issued without obtaining prior approval from the specified authority as required under section 151, rendering the proceedings invalid and unsustainable in law”. 4. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) has submitted that

Lng Amaethon LLP, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Delhi

ITA 5302/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Akash Ojha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151

Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant of approval under Section 151 of the Act depends on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued ... Finance Act, 2021) as in force on the date of issuance of notice read as under: “151. Sanction for issue of notice.- Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be,- (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less

M/S Padma Polychem Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. NFAC, Assessment Unit Itd, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 5301/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 5301/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Padma Polychem Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, 528/1, Karkari Road, Vishwash Delhi Nagar, Delhi-110032 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp4479A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Akshay Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077228877(1) Dated 19.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151

order was issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] on an assumption that the CIT(E) was a specified authority under the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. 8. The AO issued a notice dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 of the Act accompanied ... Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant of approval under Section 151 of the Act depends on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued

Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Centre Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 49/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

record. The Ld. AR contended that as per amended provisions, the assessment should have been framed u/s 148 for which requisite satisfaction of specified authority 5 would be required. In the absence of such a satisfaction, entire assessment proceedings would be bad-in-law. The Ld. AR filed written submissions ... present case, approval was taken to frame assessment u/s 143(3) only. As against this, the provisions of Sec.148B mandate prior approval of specified authority. These provisions provide that no order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this Act shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank

Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Village Mansoorwal, Tehsil Zira Head Office, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 48/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

record. The Ld. AR contended that as per amended provisions, the assessment should have been framed u/s 148 for which requisite satisfaction of specified authority 5 would be required. In the absence of such a satisfaction, entire assessment proceedings would be bad-in-law. The Ld. AR filed written submissions ... present case, approval was taken to frame assessment u/s 143(3) only. As against this, the provisions of Sec.148B mandate prior approval of specified authority. These provisions provide that no order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this Act shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Tehsil Zira, Faridkot -151203, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 463/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

record. The Ld. AR contended that as per amended provisions, the assessment should have been framed u/s 148 for which requisite satisfaction of specified authority 5 would be required. In the absence of such a satisfaction, entire assessment proceedings would be bad-in-law. The Ld. AR filed written submissions ... present case, approval was taken to frame assessment u/s 143(3) only. As against this, the provisions of Sec.148B mandate prior approval of specified authority. These provisions provide that no order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this Act shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Quila Chowk

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 193/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

record. The Ld. AR contended that as per amended provisions, the assessment should have been framed u/s 148 for which requisite satisfaction of specified authority 5 would be required. In the absence of such a satisfaction, entire assessment proceedings would be bad-in-law. The Ld. AR filed written submissions ... present case, approval was taken to frame assessment u/s 143(3) only. As against this, the provisions of Sec.148B mandate prior approval of specified authority. These provisions provide that no order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this Act shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank

Nezone Tubes Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 180/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

given an interpretation that is consistent with the object and purpose of the Income-tax Act. . . 74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime: (i) If income escaping ... jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section

Nezone Tubes Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 179/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

given an interpretation that is consistent with the object and purpose of the Income-tax Act. . . 74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime: (i) If income escaping ... jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section

Abhishek Jayketu Joshi, Mumbai vs. Ac Cir-42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5775/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarabhishek Jayketu Joshi Ac Cir-42(2)(1), C-73, Venus Society, R. G. Kautilya Bhavan, Thadani Marg, Worli Sea Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Face, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Ackpj8583H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. M. Golvala, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

receipt and bank statement had been furnished. 5. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished and, after obtaining approval of the specified authority, passed an order under section 148A(d), followed by issuance of notice under section 148 on 19.04.2023. In response, the assessee filed a return

Amit Singh, Chandigarh vs. Addl.CIT-Range-5, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 238/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Chauhan Singh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

dispute. However, since the loans were received / repaid in cash, Ld. AO alleged violation of Sec.269SS and 269T and made reference to specified authority for levy of impugned penalties for such violations. Though the assessee opposed levy of penalty by drawing attention to factual matrix, Ld. Addl. CIT, Range

Amit Singh, Chandigarh vs. Addl.CIT-Range-5, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 237/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Chauhan Singh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 273B

dispute. However, since the loans were received / repaid in cash, Ld. AO alleged violation of Sec.269SS and 269T and made reference to specified authority for levy of impugned penalties for such violations. Though the assessee opposed levy of penalty by drawing attention to factual matrix, Ld. Addl. CIT, Range

Kumar Matunga Project, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2200/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69

time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(i) has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval; e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime ... time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has extended time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval; f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend