← 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

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the Specified Authority for the purpose of sections 148 and 148A of the Act is Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director ... escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice: Provided further that no such approval shall be required where the Assessing Officer, with the prior approval of the specified authority

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

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

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

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

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

from Hon’ble Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal, being a mandatory requirement of Section 151(ii) of the Act which provides that specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall beChief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from ... Fresh notice under section 148 of the Act can be issued in these cases, with the approval of the specified authority, only if the case falls under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 149 as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 and reproduced in paragraph 6.1 above. Specified

Bakers Spices & Ingredients Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp Ward 1, Coimbatore

ITA 882/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a) be dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-a-vis those notices which have been issued under section

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

Appeal are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

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

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

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

assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a) be dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under section ... thereafter; ITA No. 1407/MUM/2021 & CO No.762924 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under section

Om Prakash Agrawal HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaiupr, Jaipur

ITA 967/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

notice under Section 148, conduct enquiry, details of which have been contained in Sub Clause (a) (b) & (c), which requires seeking prior approval of specified authority with respect to information; providing an opportunity of being heard to assessee and consideration of reply of assessee—Sub-Clause (d) of Section 148A

Gategroup Investments Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Int Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 727/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhangateway Investments Singapore Pte Ltd. ...... Appellant 1 Maritime Square, # 12-03 Harbour Front Centre Singapore-99 253 Pan No. : Aaecg1565B

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Ms. Shikha MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant-Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151Section 270ASection 274Section 56(2)

under: As discussed in para 6.1 above, the instant case falls under clause (a) of section 149(1) of the Act, prior approval of Specified Authority being the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 Mumbai has been taken u/s. 151(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide dated ... 148A (d) of the Act. 7. Before us Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 151 of the Act provide ‘specified authority’ for the purpose section 148 of the Act and section 148A of the Act. The relevant extract of the section is reproduced below

Aakruti Ketan Mehta, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3477/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 148A

assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a) be dis- pensed with as a onetime measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under section ... required to pass an order disposing the objections filed by the assessee. However, the AO is required to obtain prior approval of the “Specified authority” for passing an order u/s.148A(d) of the Act. The Specified aauthority, who is entitled to sanction the issue of notice/passing order u/s 148A

Vardha Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2416/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

under clause (d) of section 148A of 4 M/s. Vardha Enterprises Private Limited the Act to that effect, with the prior approval of the specified authority of the new law. This order is required to be passed within one month from the end of the month in which the reply ... section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice under section 148 after obtaining the approval of the specified authority under section 151 of the new law. The copy of the order passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act shall also

M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1916/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Section 80IA(4) has held that the proviso does not require that there should be a direct agreement between the transferee enterprises and the specified authorities for availing the benefit u/s. 80IA of the Act. 3.2. On appeal against this issue the Ld CIT[A] considered the Agreements entered between ... Railways has recognised the assessee as a contractor. Impliedly the Department has accepted the fact that the assessee has provided "Infrastructure facility" to the specified authority. The only doubt in the mind of the Department was that there was no existence of direct contract between the assessee and the Railways

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

ITA 1872/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Section 80IA(4) has held that the proviso does not require that there should be a direct agreement between the transferee enterprises and the specified authorities for availing the benefit u/s. 80IA of the Act. 3.2. On appeal against this issue the Ld CIT[A] considered the Agreements entered between ... Railways has recognised the assessee as a contractor. Impliedly the Department has accepted the fact that the assessee has provided "Infrastructure facility" to the specified authority. The only doubt in the mind of the Department was that there was no existence of direct contract between the assessee and the Railways

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

ITA 1711/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Section 80IA(4) has held that the proviso does not require that there should be a direct agreement between the transferee enterprises and the specified authorities for availing the benefit u/s. 80IA of the Act. 3.2. On appeal against this issue the Ld CIT[A] considered the Agreements entered between ... Railways has recognised the assessee as a contractor. Impliedly the Department has accepted the fact that the assessee has provided "Infrastructure facility" to the specified authority. The only doubt in the mind of the Department was that there was no existence of direct contract between the assessee and the Railways

Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1613/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Section 80IA(4) has held that the proviso does not require that there should be a direct agreement between the transferee enterprises and the specified authorities for availing the benefit u/s. 80IA of the Act. 3.2. On appeal against this issue the Ld CIT[A] considered the Agreements entered between ... Railways has recognised the assessee as a contractor. Impliedly the Department has accepted the fact that the assessee has provided "Infrastructure facility" to the specified authority. The only doubt in the mind of the Department was that there was no existence of direct contract between the assessee and the Railways

Pankaj Surech Rach, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2290/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 50C

period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and, on that basis, has wrongly mentioned that the approval of the specified authority under section 151(i) should be taken. This conclusion is premised on the basis that these notices travel back to 31 March 2020 which ... hence, is issued beyond period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and, accordingly, the approval of the specified authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be taken. 30. This court in Tata Communications Transformation Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), has rejected that argument

Jain Machine Tools, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(1)(7), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Devendra Jain
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

approval note under section 151 which the approval note under section 151 which is not signed by the specified is not signed by the specified authority Pr. CIT 29, Mumbai. authority Pr. CIT 29, Mumbai. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

Kubix Realties LLP, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle -14 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1260/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1260/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 292BSection 3

present case, the original assessment was completed under the provisions of section 143(3) vide order dated 30.12.2009. The sanction of the specified authority u/s.151(1) is a condition precedent for issue of notice u/s.148. The provisions of section 151 mandates that prior sanction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief

Manda Dubey, Hoshangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Itrasi, Itrasi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 228/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Boradmanda Dubey, Ito, Ganeshganj

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

impugned re-assessment notice dated 23/03/2020 for A.Y 2017-18 is invalid and without jurisdiction as same been issued without prior mandatory approval of specified authority in terms of section 151 of the Act (un-amended Section 151) and therefore the consequential Manda Dubey proceeding in form of re-assessment

Mrs. Neelam Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

relating to the assessment year 2017-18, was challenged on the ground of non-compliance of the formalities of taking approval of the specified authority mentioned in Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The revenue cannot dispute the fact that identical issue was decided against the Department in the case

Hyundai Transys Inc, Republic of Korea vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

provides that before issuing any notice under Section 148, the assessing officer shall: (i) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (ii) provide an opportunity of being heard ... assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority; (iii) consider the reply of the assessee furnished, if any, in response to the show-cause notice referred to in clause (b); and (iv) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, as to whether

Sunil Chablani, Ajmer, Rajasthan vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 68/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT-DR)
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 45

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Nisha Thomas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-Drp-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2764/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a) be dispensed with as a one-time 6 ITA No. 2764/Mum/2024 - Nisha Thomas measure vis-à-vis those notices which have ... fresh notice under section-148 of the act can be issued with previous approval of specified authority only in those cases where the escapement is equal to or more than Rs. 50,00,000/- i.e.only if the case falls under section 149(1)(b) as amended by Finance