← All Phrases

“Section 151(1)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 151Section 151(1)(ii)18 judgments

GOVINDAN GNANAVEL,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3202/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. Govindan Gnanavel :- 4 -: 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act contemplates exclusion

S 1284 THATHAIYANGARPATTY PACCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

ITA 3172/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

For Appellant: Mr. A. Tamilamudan, C.A ,-For Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act contemplates exclusion of time provided

S 1284, THATHAIYANGARPATTY PACCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

ITA 3171/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

For Appellant: Mr. A. Tamilamudan, C.A ,-For Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act contemplates exclusion of time provided

STP ENTERPRISES,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, TIRUNELVELI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3729/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3729/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 46. It is pertinent to note that the pro It is pertinent

SUDARSANAM BHASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3657/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3657/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151

ANNAI AMALI MEENBEDI THOLILAR MOONATA SANGAM,TIRUCHENDUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1, TUTICORIN

ITA 2957/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2956 & 2957/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68Section 69A

terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act contemplates exclusion of time provided

ANNAI AMALI MEENBEDI THOLILAR MOONATA SANGAM,TIRUCHENDUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, TUTICORIN

ITA 2956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2956 & 2957/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68Section 69A

terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act contemplates exclusion of time provided

VEERAPPAGOWDER MANOHARAN REP. BY L/HEIR,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3627/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3627/Chny/2025 & Sa No.140/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita No.3627/Chny/2025) िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Veerappagowder Manoharan, The Income Tax Officer, 1/48, 2Nd Street Rajan Nagar, Vs. Ward-2(1), Rajan Nagar B.O., Erode. Erode – 638 451. Pan: Brspm 5358P

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act contemplates exclusion of time provided

PARTHASARATHI PRABAKARAN,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-3,, VELLORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3111/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. Parthasarathi Prabakaran :- 5 -: 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act contemplates exclusion

THE TIRUCHENDUR CO-OP PRIMARY CO-OP SOCIETY,TIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, WARD-2,, TUTICORIN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3295/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

passed without The Tiruchendur Co-op. Prmary Co-operative Society :- 4 -: obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act contemplates exclusion of time provided

JAYAM ENTERPRISES,SALEM vs. ITD, WARD 1(1), SALEM, SALEM

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3123/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3123/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act contemplates exclusion of time provided

SUBBIAH MURUGAVEL,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-4,, TIRUNELVELI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2689/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2689/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

terms of Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed in terms of Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 46. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act contemplates exclusion of time provided

GAMNARAM OKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT. CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6791/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 234A

said notice has been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as mandated by Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the notice, dated 28/07/2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 is quashed

SHANTILAL NAROTTAMDAS PANCHAL,MALAD EAST vs. ITO-41(3)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3570/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(vii)

been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-2 instead of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as mandated by Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the notice, dated 21/07/2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed. Accordingly, the re-assessment proceedings

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

RISING STAR INVESTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwin Chhag, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

been added by ld. Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. Thus, there is violation of section 149(1)(b) as well as section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Agarwal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), held that new reassessment proceeding

MR RAHAT MOHAMMED RIYAZUDDIN SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5291/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Advocate and Shri Akshay Pawar, ARFor Respondent: R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

been added by ld. Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. Thus, there is violation of section 149(1)(b) as well as section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 5.2. Hon Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Agarwal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), held that new reassessment proceeding pursuant

ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 792/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.B Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Section 151(1)(ii) — 18 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax