← All Phrases

“mechanical approval”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 1511,395 judgments

The decision most relied on for mechanical approval is PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (163 Taxmann.com 9), cited in 597 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mechanical approval

PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar
163 Taxmann.com 9 · 2024 · High Court
597
citing judgments

Approval under Section 153D for search assessments is invalid if granted mechanically, hastily, or without due application of mind, such as on the same day as the proposal or in a bunched manner. Such an invalid approval renders the consequential assessment order under Section 153A void ab initio.

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.

ACIT v. Sirajuddin& Co.
150 Taxmann.com 146 · 2023 · High Court
288
citing judgments

An approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act must demonstrate that the approving authority applied its mind to the draft assessment order, and a perfunctory or mechanical approval invalidates subsequent adjustments.

Shreelekha Damani v. DCIT
173 TTJ 332 · 2015 · ITAT
236
citing judgments

Approval granted by a superior authority under Section 153D in a mechanical or perfunctory manner, without proper application of mind, lacks legal sanctity and renders the subsequent assessment order null and void.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal
149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court
194
citing judgments

Approval of draft assessment orders under Section 153D must be granted with due application of mind, not mechanically. Approving multiple cases, such as 38 in a single day, without proper scrutiny amounts to mechanical approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

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.

PCIT v. Anuj Bansal
165 Taxmann.com 2 · 2024 · High Court
181
citing judgments

An approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is considered mechanical and invalid if granted without application of mind and without perusing relevant assessment records, including seized material. This principle has been affirmed by multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Vijayadevi Naval Kishore Bharatia v. Land Acquisition Officer
5 SCC 83 · 2003 · Supreme Court
167
citing judgments

Statutory approvals required under the Income Tax Act, particularly for assessments, must reflect a genuine application of mind by the approving authority and cannot be mechanical or granted without due consideration.

Judgments citing mechanical approval

Society for Advancement in Education, Mussoorie vs. ITO Exemption Word Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 218/DDN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 158

following the judgments of High Delhi High Court (supra),we are of the opinion that the approvals granted for re-opening the assessmentsare mechanical approval and the notice issued u/s 148 of the Actbased on such approval are bad in law, therefore, consequent impugned re- assessment ordersare hereby quashed. Accordingly

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 69A

ITA No 1894 of 2025 Exel Rubber Private Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1874/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1872/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Vilas Polymer Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals i

ITA 1870/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Surana Bros Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2143/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

condition for reopening after four years, such satisfaction must be based on independent application of mind to the reasons recorded and materially available. The mechanical approval without consideration of facts vitiates the proceedings. Similarly in case of Commissioner of Income-tax. vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical

Rajeev Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153ASection 153DSection 69

assessee submitted that in the present case, approval was granted by Ld. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Gurugram, vide letter dated 17.08.2021 which is mechanical approval. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that Ld. Addl. CIT granted approval ... submits that from the perusal of the same it could be seen that the approval granted by the ld. Adl. CIT was mechanical approval as no separate approval for each for various assessment years. The approvals so granted are as under: 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also

Rajeev Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1314/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153ASection 153DSection 69

assessee submitted that in the present case, approval was granted by Ld. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Gurugram, vide letter dated 17.08.2021 which is mechanical approval. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that Ld. Addl. CIT granted approval ... submits that from the perusal of the same it could be seen that the approval granted by the ld. Adl. CIT was mechanical approval as no separate approval for each for various assessment years. The approvals so granted are as under: 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also

Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, Bhuj vs. ITO Ward 4, Gandhidham (Bhuj)

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

ITA 377/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessing officer. Therefore, we have gone through the above satisfaction / approval given by the ld PCIT, and noted that it is a mechanical approval and on this account the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer should be quashed. 15. Therefore, we note that ld PCIT (the competent authority

Sanjay Rawat, Dehradun vs. ACIT Central Cricle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271

Ranjan Rajesh Kumar in ITA No.78 & 79/DDN/2023 vide order dated 08.02.2024 after appreciating these facts has held that the approval granted by PCIT is mechanical approval. The relevant observations as contained in para 16 of the said order are reproduced as under:- ITA Nos.90, 95 & 104/DDN/2024 16. “In the present ... Settlement Commission by the very same PCIT and the reasons recorded. Thus, in our opinion, the approval granted by the Pr. CIT is a mechanical approval.” 15. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas [2017] 395 ITR 677 has held that proceedings

Sanjay Rawat, Dehradun vs. ACIT Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271

Ranjan Rajesh Kumar in ITA No.78 & 79/DDN/2023 vide order dated 08.02.2024 after appreciating these facts has held that the approval granted by PCIT is mechanical approval. The relevant observations as contained in para 16 of the said order are reproduced as under:- ITA Nos.90, 95 & 104/DDN/2024 16. “In the present ... Settlement Commission by the very same PCIT and the reasons recorded. Thus, in our opinion, the approval granted by the Pr. CIT is a mechanical approval.” 15. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas [2017] 395 ITR 677 has held that proceedings

Sh.Sanjay Rawat, Dehradun vs. ACIT, Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271

Ranjan Rajesh Kumar in ITA No.78 & 79/DDN/2023 vide order dated 08.02.2024 after appreciating these facts has held that the approval granted by PCIT is mechanical approval. The relevant observations as contained in para 16 of the said order are reproduced as under:- ITA Nos.90, 95 & 104/DDN/2024 16. “In the present ... Settlement Commission by the very same PCIT and the reasons recorded. Thus, in our opinion, the approval granted by the Pr. CIT is a mechanical approval.” 15. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas [2017] 395 ITR 677 has held that proceedings

Puspha Devi, Chhatari, Bulandshahr vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Bulandshahr

Appeal is allowed

ITA 315/DEL/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 315/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Pushpa Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Malik & Co. (Advisors & Ward-3, Advocates – Since 1927), 28-A, Bulandshahr, Saket Meerut, U.P.-250001 Uttar Pradesh-203001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aihpd6403D Assessee By: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Jaipur’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1066140400(1) Dated 27.06.2024, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 151

position emanating from the record, we hereby quote CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, I accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore. 4. All other pleadings

Rakesh Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 251/DEL/2026[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 251/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Rakesh Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-8875-76, G. D. Colony, B Block, Ward-60(4), Ghanduli Dairy Colony, Mayur New Delhi-110002 Vihar, Phase-3, New Delhi-110096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aocps8566H Assessee By: Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv., Ms. Manju Bala Yadav, Adv. & Sh. Manish Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/10882895340(1) Dated 21.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 151

position emanating from the record, we hereby quote CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, I accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore. 4. All other pleadings

Bhawana Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed

ITA 184/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 184/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Bhawana Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 908, Sector-10A, Near Ward-1(3), D.A.V. School, Gurguram, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Haryana-122016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Dcops0085N Assessee By: Sh. D. C. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1084222412(1) Dated 30.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. D. C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151

position emanating from the record, we hereby quote CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, I accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore. 4. All other pleadings

Nova Elevators Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-13(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7248/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnova Elevators Private Vs Ito -13(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Maharashtra-400020 402, Dimple Apts., 4E, Asha Nagar, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101 Pan: Aadcn0305K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Patel, Ca Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr Ar) Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-51, Mumbai [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15, Date Of Order 12.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Income-Tax Officer Ward-13(1)(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

approval for reopening is accorded", without demonstrating any independent examination or application of mind to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Such mechanical approval is invalid in law and renders the entire reassessment void.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record

M/S Singla Builders and Promoters Limited, Rupnagar, Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

other arguments as raised by the assessee were also rejected and the addition of Rs.108 Lacs was confirmed. 4.19 On the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D, it was held that the approval was accorded after due examination of relevant record and verification by the range head. Further, the approval ... Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated. We order so. The assessee succeeds in its respective grounds of appeal. The other legal grounds viz. mechanical approval as urged by Ld. AR has been rendered infructuous. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed in terms

M/S Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., Rupnagar Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

other arguments as raised by the assessee were also rejected and the addition of Rs.108 Lacs was confirmed. 4.19 On the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D, it was held that the approval was accorded after due examination of relevant record and verification by the range head. Further, the approval ... Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated. We order so. The assessee succeeds in its respective grounds of appeal. The other legal grounds viz. mechanical approval as urged by Ld. AR has been rendered infructuous. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed in terms

Dhansamridhi Finance Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(2), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1377/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

that while granting approval the Ld. PCIT without giving any reason for his satisfaction and approval, simply stated “Yes, Approved” which is nothing but mechanical approval and non-application of mind. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

Gaurav Kathuria, Rohtak vs. ACIT, Cent Gurgao 1, Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5171/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153DSection 250

assessee submitted that in the present case, approval was granted by ld. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Gurugram vide letter dated 20.04.2021 which is mechanical approval. Ld. AR further submits that ld. Addl. CIT granted common approval for various Assessment Years from 2017-18 to 2019-20 in terms of letter ... dated 20.04.2021. He submits that from the perusal of the same, it could be seen that approval granted by the Id. Addl. CIT was mechanical approval and separate approval for each Assessment Year was not given rather approval was given by a single order for various assessment years. The letter