Section 153B of the Income Tax Act

Assessment orders are bad in law if they are passed without valid approval from the Additional Commissioner under Section 153D, or if such approval is granted mechanically without application of mind.

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.

The validity of approval is a fundamental issue that can be raised at any time, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear such issues even if they did not originate from the orders of the CIT(A).

When a statutory authority takes action that can lead to civil or adverse consequences for an individual, the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), must be implicitly followed, even if the relevant statute does not expressly provide for it.

This case establishes principles for determining the validity of a special audit direction issued under Section 142(2A) and its impact on the extended period of limitation under Section 153(3) Explanation 1(iii), often considered in the context of natural justice.

A search is considered complete once the search party leaves the premises with the seized material. A restraint order under section 132(3) can only be passed if there's a practical difficulty in seizing the material.

Approval for assessments under Section 153D must demonstrate application of mind to the facts of the case and be obtained separately for each assessment year.

Transaction charges paid to a stock exchange are for providing a facility and not fees for technical services, thus no tax deduction is required under Section 194J.

A reference for assessment years preceding the commencement of a search protocol is invalid, and no extended limitation period can be applied.