Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Umesh Sadashiv Thakre v. ACIT (2025) 236 TTJ 745 / 175 taxmann.com 951 / [2026] 134 ITR 69 (Nagpur)(Trib) YRCE Educare (P) Ltd v.ACIT (2025) 236 TTJ 745 / 175 taxmann.com 951 / [2026] 134 ITR 69 (Nagpur) Trib) Atul Manoharro Yamsanwar v. ACIT (2025) 236 TTJ 745 / 175 taxmann.com 951 / [2026] 134 ITR 69 (Nagpur) Trib)

S. 153D: Assessment-Search]-Approval-Departmental Representative produced a sealed envelope stating that he is relying on a “Confidential” document to prove “Application of mind” by the officer.-Each assessment year is different from the other, and the facts/additions made in separate assessment years demand separate application of mind, as is the requirement of S. 153D. Non-application of mind]-The order was quashed and set aside.[S. 132, 153A]

Sushen Mohan Gupta v. ACIT (2025) 236 TTJ 32 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 153D: Assessment-Search-Approval-Failure to examine the seized documents-Addl. CIT approved 86 other orders pertaining to different assessees in these three days. The language of all these approvals is identical-The approving authority has granted common approval for all the assessment years in respect of the assessee-while granting the approval, the benefit of presumption under S. 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act that all official acts are regularly performed is not available to the Revenue. The assessment order was held to be void ab initio, hence quashed. [S.153A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.114(e)]

Zenith Barter (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 468 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 153A: Assessment]-Search]-Incriminating material]-Balance sheet-Statement recorded-Not incriminating material-Addition was deleted. [S. 132]

Sushen Mohan Gupta v. ACIT (2025) 236 TTJ 32 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 153A: Assessment]-Search-Incriminating material-32GB Pen-drive available with the Investigation Wing-Statement taken under section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act by Enforcement Directorate (ED)]-Excel sheets]-No additions could be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. [S. 132(4), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, S.50]

Sanjay Natwarlal Desai v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 726 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Period of six years-Original notice under S. 148, which was deemed to be a notice issued under S. 148A(b)-The notice issued under S. 148 on 22nd July, 2022, was barred by limitation.[S. 147, 148, 148A(b)]

Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi (Smt.) v. ACIT (2025) 236 TTJ 718/ 176 taxmann.com 257 (Chennai) Trib)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Notice under S. 148 within the TOLA period on 30th June, 2021-Minimum days available as per the fourth proviso to S 149(1) was seven days-last date for issuing notice under s. 148 was 23rd June, 2022-Notice dt. 28th July, 2022, issued under s. 148 in respect of asst. yr. 2013-14 is time-barred.[S. 147, 148]

Alauddin v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 497 (Agra)(Trib)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Income escaping assessment was certainly more than Rs. one lakh. Notice dt. 31st March, 2021, issued under s. 148 within six years from the end of the asst. yr. 2015-16, falls within the time-limit of the old regime.-Notice through electronic platform on assessee’s email-ID-No illegality or invalidity either in the notice under s. 148 r/w s. 142(1) or at any stage of the assessment proceedings.[S.143(2), 144B,147, 148, 151]

Shree Ganesh Commodity Brokers v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 826 (Delhi) Trib)

S. 148: Reassessment]-Notice-Notice issued in the name of dissolved firm-No notice has been issued to any of the partners-Non existing entity-Notice issued in the name and address of the non-existing entity is in violation of S. 283(2), and it has no sanctity in the eyes of the law-Assessment order was quashed. [S.144B, 147, 189, 283(2)]

Trans World International LLC v. DCIT (IT) (2025) 236 TTJ 385 / 175 taxmann.com 703 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 148: Reassessment-Notice Limitation-Time-limit for issuing of notice under s. 148 for asst. yr. 2015-16 under the old provisions was 31st March, 2022-Notice issued on 28th June, 2021-Not covered under TOLA]-Barred by limitation. [S. 144C(13), 147, 149(1)]

Zenith Barter (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 468 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 147: Reassessment]-Recorded reasons]-No addition was made based on recorded reasons. An issue that was not subject matter; no addition can be made.[S.68, 148]