Section 151(i) of the Income Tax Act

KALPANA SANJAY PAWAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD-41(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: the Tribunal challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings raising, inter alia, the following grounds: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-1, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the

SUDHIR DAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

JIGNESH JANU ABGUL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-4(1), THANE

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

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

M/S SHEETAL CLOTHING COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

SHIVI MUKESH KUMAR ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshivi Mukesh Kumar Acit, Circle 22(1) D-1402, Hubtown Seasons, Mumbai Next To Fine Arts Society, Vs. Ramakrishna Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No. Aqapk 9881 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate & Ms. Vinita A. Nara – Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Specifically Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 6, Which Reads As Under: 6. The Sanction U/S. 151 Is Bad In Law & As A Result, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. Referring To This Ground, Ld. Counsel Submitted, At The Very Outset, This Issue May Be Considered And, If Warranted The Other Issues Can Be Taken Up Thereafter. As Could Be Seen