BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

23 results for “TDS”+ Section 151Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai23Ahmedabad19Delhi11Chennai10Chandigarh9Agra5Hyderabad5Rajkot5Visakhapatnam5Lucknow4Jaipur4Kolkata1Cochin1Raipur1Pune1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 69A46Section 14845Section 14724Addition to Income23Section 6914Section 25013Section 2412Section 148A11Section 1449Reopening of Assessment

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 3954/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nMs. Jigna Jain, A/RFor Respondent: \nShri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

section 151A of the Act. The effect of a guideline came up\nfor discussion in Sofitel Realty LLP v. ITO (TDS

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

9
Penalty8
Reassessment7
ITAT Mumbai
03 Jul 2025
AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
Section 250Section 69A

section\n132 of the Income tax Act at the office of the assessee\ncompany and residential premises of the promoters of the\ncompany as well as the residential premises of the\nemployees of the group, it was gathered that the assessee\ngroup is in the practice of using code word \"murrum\" for out of\nbooks cash expenses. Before delving into

DARSHANA JATIN SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7769/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

151A and the faceless reassessment\nscheme. It was further contended that the sanction under section\n151 was mechanical and copy thereof was not provided.\n6. On merits, the assessee reiterated the double counting of\ncash deposits, incorrect computation of interest income, joint\nownership of property and payment in subsequent year and non-\ngrant of TDS

PRITI SURESH PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1868/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

151A of the Act and therefore the said notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment order dated 09.03.2024 under section 147 of the Act is liable to be quashed; 1.3. The CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that the purported approval of Pr. CIT (Central-3), Mumbai for issuing notice dated 25.01.2023 under

PRITI SURESH PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1870/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

151A of the Act and therefore the said notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment order dated 09.03.2024 under section 147 of the Act is liable to be quashed; 1.3. The CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that the purported approval of Pr. CIT (Central-3), Mumbai for issuing notice dated 25.01.2023 under

PRITI SURESH PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1869/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

151A of the Act and therefore the said notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment order dated 09.03.2024 under section 147 of the Act is liable to be quashed; 1.3. The CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that the purported approval of Pr. CIT (Central-3), Mumbai for issuing notice dated 25.01.2023 under

SUSHIL RAJBANSHI GUPTA,BHANDUP WEST MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(4)(4), KAUTILYA BHAVAN BKC MUMBAI

ITA 1121/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

151A of the Act. The order under section 147 is therefore illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction as the jurisdictional conditions of section 147 to 151 have not been complied with. 3. On the facts and circumstances

ADVANCED COMPUTERS AND MOBILES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

ITA 3212/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Advanced Computers & Mobiles Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai Room No. 533, 5Th Floor, India Private Limited Vs Unit No. 9, Ground Floor, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Yusuf Building, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aamca5425A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 254(1)

151A of the Act as the same have passed issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer. Thus, 2 Advanced Computers and Mobiles India Private Limited the entire reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are bad in law and without jurisdiction and the same may be quashed and set aside. 3. The reopening under

SANAND SANKARDAS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Assessee is disposed of in favour of\nthe Assessee in above manner

ITA 1102/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 69

151A and the notification issued\nthereunder notifying e Assessment of Income Escaping\nAssessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said\norder and the notice as well as the entire assessment\nproceeding as null and void.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment\norder under Section

GAUTAM JYOTI CO OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY ,GIRGAON MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19 1 1 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1939/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh Adv. and Shivali SFor Respondent: 29.10.2025
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151ASection 234ASection 250Section 50C

TDS Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai Society 304, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Gautam Jyoti Co-operative HSG Parel, Mumbai 400012 Society Limited Gr Floor Amar Vs. Niwas, 175/189 RajaramMohanray, Girgaon, Mumbai 400004 PAN: AADAG3838L Appellant) : Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Singh Adv. and Shivali S. Mhatre- Adv. : Shri. SwapnilChoudhary Sr. AR Revenue by : 29.10.2025 Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement

SANTOSH KUMAR RAMLAXMAN YADAV,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5123/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 144Section 148Section 151ASection 69

Section 151A as Notice u/s 148 is not issued by the faceless assessing Officer. 5. The Learned NFAC erred in confirming order of AO making the addition of unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 amounting to Rs. 2,64,30,442/- without appreciating that the investment in immovable property was only Rs 1,35,00,000/- and TDS

JAMES IVAN DANTIS,MUMBAI vs. ITO -41(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 628/MUM/2026[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, SR. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

151A, as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Hence, the impugned. notice issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 void ab initio, and the same should be quashed. 2.0 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting

JAMES IVAN DANTIS,NIGERIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-41(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4093/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, SR. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

151A, as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Hence, the impugned. notice issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 void ab initio, and the same should be quashed. 2.0 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting

FAISAL BADRUDDIN SHITWARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAX WARD)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4081/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrifaisal Badruddin Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Kautilya Shitware Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 307, 1A, Delux Nagar Vs. Complex, Mumbai 400051 Building, Jeevan Baug, Post Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Office Road, Mumbra, Thane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400612 Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bvops1660L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nishit Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai Dated 17.12.2024 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR. DR
Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 151ASection 153Section 5Section 69

151A read with Notification 18 of 2022; 1.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned re-assessment be quashed and set aside. ON JURISDICTION AND VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS: 2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order as passed by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation since

DCIT -CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5739/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

Section 151A.  Fourthly, ld. AO has erred in reopening the assessment without obtaining the necessary approval u/s.148A r.w.s. 151 as Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. ld. AO has obtained approval from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax as against Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as required u/s.151 (amended by Finance Act 2021; and  Lastly, reopening cannot be done on the behest