SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Section 151(2) has extended time\ntill 31/03/2021 to grant approval;\nf. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) would extend to all the reassessment

SHIVRAM S SHETTY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Section 151(2) has extended time\ntill 31/03/2021 to grant approval;\nf. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) would extend to all the reassessment

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

sections": [ "139(4)", "143(1)", "143(3)", "148", "143(2)", "147", "144B", "234A", "234B", "234C", "153A", "153C", "263", "151", "151A", "148A", "151(i)", "151(ii)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Him.

reassessment proceedings contending that the approval/sanction obtained under Section 151 of the Act was not valid. In this regard, primary contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that in the present case for Assessment Year 2017-2018, the notice under Section 148 and order under Section 148A(d) have been issued on 21/07/2022, which is beyond the period

ACIT, CIRCLE 24(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NILKAMAL CRATES & CONTAINERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets before the date of receiving the books of account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC vs. JAJ INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets before the date of receiving the books of account

ACIT CIR. 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHARTI AXA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order was without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law, since sanction obtained under section 151 was not provided to the appellant, much less within limitation prescribed in section 149 of the Act.‖ 3.1. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in its appeal:- ―1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Joint Commissioner. The expression has a distinct meaning by virtue of the definition in 'section 2(28C). The Commissioner of Income tax 15 not a Joint Commissioner within the meaning of section 2(28C). There is no statutory provision under which power to be exercised by an officer

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

Appeal is allowed

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

2 Assessment Year 2016-2017 5.1 The reassessment notice is time barred and consequently the assessment made is also invalid and be declared null and void. 5.2 The sanction under Section 151

CYRUS PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151 (ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from

LEELABEN KANTILAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2) of the Act continues to be the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. However, vide Finance Act, 2015, with effect from 01/06/2015, section 151 of the Act was amended and Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax was empowered to grant the sanction for issuance of notice under section

PRAFUL CHANDARIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT )IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

reassessment proceedings and the notice u/s 148 after observing and holding as under:- “6 The second ground upon which the reopening is sought to be challenged is that the mandatory requirement of Section 151(2

PURSE HOLDINGS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

reassessment proceedings and the notice u/s 148 after observing and holding as under:- “6 The second ground upon which the reopening is sought to be challenged is that the mandatory requirement of Section 151(2

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RISHABH AVNISH MODY, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from

DHAVAL EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 5(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dhaval Exim Pvt. Ltd., Acit, 5(1)(2), 117-A, 117-A, Panchratna Bldg., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mama Parmanand Marg, Opera Maharishi Karve Road, House, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aadcd 0472 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr : 04/04/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2024

section 151(2) of the Act (As substituted from 01.06.2015) is of Joint/Additional of the Act (As substituted from 01.06.2015) is of Joint/Additional of the Act (As substituted from 01.06.2015) is of Joint/Additional CIT. The Ld. CIT (A) has further erred in confirming the same. CIT. The Ld. CIT (A) has further erred in confirming the same

K.J. KHILANANI EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by the assessee on the reopening of assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 35 & 36/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

Reassessment proceedings not cancelled Held : Section 151 requires a sanction to be taken for the issuance of a notice under Section 148 in certain cases. In the present case, an assessment had not been made under Section 143(3) or Section 147 forA.Y. 2004-05. Hence, under sub section 2