← All Phrases

“reasons recorded”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 14813,127 judgments

The decision most relied on for reasons recorded is Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332), cited in 695 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reasons recorded

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.
82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court
382
citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.
354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court
366
citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if initiated based on documents already available on record without fresh tangible material, and if the sanction under section 151 is accorded mechanically, indicating non-application of mind.

M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.
300 ITR 403 · 2008 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

The requirement of statutory prior approval by a high-ranking authority, even if administrative, serves as an in-built protection against arbitrary exercise of power by the Assessing Officer. While such approval need not record elaborate reasoning, the approving authority has a heavy duty to ensure it is not an empty ritual, fulfilling its purpose of supervisory control.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT
308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
367 ITR 112 · 2014 · High Court
225
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a specific satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the person searched, recorded prior to initiating proceedings, is a jurisdictional prerequisite, rendering its absence void. The approval function under Section 153D is administrative and does not require elaborate reasoning.

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court
217
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

Judgments citing reasons recorded

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Application of Mind The reason for re-opening is for bringing to tax the escaped income of Rs.1.16.20,710/- which, as per the reason recorded (PB 4-5), consists of following two components: S.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) a. Unexplained Cost of acquisition of immovable property Rs.57,21,0/- (half ... Randeep Investment (P) Ltd ITA No.4365 & 4005/Del/2015 dt: 26.03.2019. B. Mechanical Approval The copy of performa for obtaining approval along with reason recorded is placed in paper book at pages 3-5. The first reason of mechanical approval is the failure of the approving authority i.e. Ld Pr CIT, Karnal

International Green Scapes Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 74(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above observations

ITA 2047/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Dcit, Ltd. B-16, Circle-74(1), Room No. 411, South Extn., Part-1, Vs 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr [Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Cit(Tds), Ltd., B-16, Delhi-1, Room No. 610, 6Th South Extn., Part-1, Vs Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 263

petitions insofar as the invocation of Section 194C of the Act is concerned and hold that EDC payments would be covered there under. For reasons recorded in the body of this judgement, we also turn down the challenge to the clarification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes dated ... petitions insofar as the invocation of Section 194C of the Act is concerned and hold that EDC payments would be covered there under. For reasons recorded in the body of this judgement, we also turn down the challenge to the clarification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes dated

International Green Scapes Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 74(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above observations

ITA 2046/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Dcit, Ltd. B-16, Circle-74(1), Room No. 411, South Extn., Part-1, Vs 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr [Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Cit(Tds), Ltd., B-16, Delhi-1, Room No. 610, 6Th South Extn., Part-1, Vs Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 263

petitions insofar as the invocation of Section 194C of the Act is concerned and hold that EDC payments would be covered there under. For reasons recorded in the body of this judgement, we also turn down the challenge to the clarification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes dated ... petitions insofar as the invocation of Section 194C of the Act is concerned and hold that EDC payments would be covered there under. For reasons recorded in the body of this judgement, we also turn down the challenge to the clarification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes dated

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

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

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

reasons recorded-Assessee objected to same before AO, that was rejected and assessment was completed u/ss. 143(3) and 147-CIT(A) found that reason recorded by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, for according sanction, was merely recording ‘I am Satisfied'-Action for sanction was alleged to be without application ... instant case, the proposed reassessment was sanctioned by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, with the following remarks: "Yes, I am satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." (emphasis¹ supplied) 23. The power to sanction

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5335/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

assessment order made on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged reasons recorded in this case, the alleged reasons recorded in this case is against the facts and statutory provisions of the Act. 2. On the facts

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5334/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

assessment order made on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged reasons recorded in this case, the alleged reasons recorded in this case is against the facts and statutory provisions of the Act. 2. On the facts

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5333/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

assessment order made on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged reasons recorded in this case, the alleged reasons recorded in this case is against the facts and statutory provisions of the Act. 2. On the facts

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

assessment order made on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged reasons recorded in this case, the alleged reasons recorded in this case is against the facts and statutory provisions of the Act. 2. On the facts

Nahta Prakash Chand Through Legal Heir Vachan Kumar Nahata, Seoni vs. Assessing Officer, Seoni

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri PC Bardia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 44ASection 69A

affording reasonable opportunity to explain the case in spite of request made, in justifying A O failure to supply copy of reasons recorded iv) in drawing adverse inference to every explanations filed/submitted for the sake of justifying addition made by the AO 4) The Id CIT (appeals) faceless erred

Mithilesh Jagdeo Singh Pawar, Amravati vs. ITO Ward-5, Amravati

ITA 70/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Mithilesh Jagdeo Singh Ito Ward-5 Pawar, Besides Dps, Vs. Ghatladki, Chandur Bazar, Saturna Road, Maharashtra - 444720. Maharashtra - 444605. Pan: Bpfpp6167L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Mrudul Bhusari, Ld. Adv {Ld. Amicus Curie} Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry:

For Appellant: Ms. Mrudul Bhusari, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(40)Section 250Section 69A

unsustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. Amicus Curie further drew the attention of this Court to para nos.7 & 8 of the reasons recorded, as appears from page no.3 of the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 wherefrom it is clear that the AO had observed that in this case ... Janata Sahakari Bank, Amaravati was not discussed in the said assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. This Court observes that from the reasons recorded and the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act it appears that there are contrary facts to the effect that

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

eyes of law for want of jurisdiction. 4.4 Though the assessee has also challenged the order of the authorities below on the basis of reasons recorded u/s 147 of the Act, however as we are inclined to quash the assessment order for the lack of jurisdiction hence would not feel ... appropriate to dwell upon the other aspects such as reasons recorded u/s 147 and other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.” In view of above, notice issued u/s 148 without serving the notice and the consequential assessment order passed by non jurisdictional AO be quashed. Ground No.2

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

eyes of law for want of jurisdiction. 4.4 Though the assessee has also challenged the order of the authorities below on the basis of reasons recorded u/s 147 of the Act, however as we are inclined to quash the assessment order for the lack of jurisdiction hence would not feel ... appropriate to dwell upon the other aspects such as reasons recorded u/s 147 and other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.” In view of above, notice issued u/s 148 without serving the notice and the consequential assessment order passed by non jurisdictional AO be quashed. Ground No.2

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

cash the Assessing Officer has increased the turnover by 20% which is not excessive. Hence this appeal. SUBMISSIONS: 1. No addition made on the reasons recorded u/s 148: As the ld. AO issued the notice u/s 148 on the reasons recorded as per assessment order that ““ As per AIR information ... such issue comes to his notice in the course of proceedings under this section even though said issue did not find mention in the reasons recorded and the notice issued under s. 148. Since there was confusion prevailing with regard to the powers of the AO to assess or reassess

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Upon examination of the reasons recorded for reopening and the submissions made by the assessee, we find that the bank accounts relied upon by the Revenue were already disclosed in the course ... that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Further, the reasons recorded for reopening do not refer to any new/fresh tangible material coming into the possession of the Assessing Officer after the original assessment

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Upon examination of the reasons recorded for reopening and the submissions made by the assessee, we find that the bank accounts relied upon by the Revenue were already disclosed in the course ... that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Further, the reasons recorded for reopening do not refer to any new/fresh tangible material coming into the possession of the Assessing Officer after the original assessment

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Upon examination of the reasons recorded for reopening and the submissions made by the assessee, we find that the bank accounts relied upon by the Revenue were already disclosed in the course ... that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Further, the reasons recorded for reopening do not refer to any new/fresh tangible material coming into the possession of the Assessing Officer after the original assessment

Income Tax Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel HUF, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Upon examination of the reasons recorded for reopening and the submissions made by the assessee, we find that the bank accounts relied upon by the Revenue were already disclosed in the course ... that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Further, the reasons recorded for reopening do not refer to any new/fresh tangible material coming into the possession of the Assessing Officer after the original assessment

Income Tax Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel HUF, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Upon examination of the reasons recorded for reopening and the submissions made by the assessee, we find that the bank accounts relied upon by the Revenue were already disclosed in the course ... that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Further, the reasons recorded for reopening do not refer to any new/fresh tangible material coming into the possession of the Assessing Officer after the original assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1776/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

issue of notice which is non- compliance of procedure laid down before issue of Show Cause Notice u/s.148. 3. It is further submitted that Reasons Recorded by the AO are general and does not show his independent application of mind to justify initiating proceedings u/s.148 void

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

issue of notice which is non- compliance of procedure laid down before issue of Show Cause Notice u/s.148. 3. It is further submitted that Reasons Recorded by the AO are general and does not show his independent application of mind to justify initiating proceedings u/s.148 void