https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780520 HC held that the approval under s.153D was mechanically given without application of mind and therefore invalid. The PCIT failed to record genuine concurrence; a bare "Yes" was treated as rubber-stamp approval. Applying earlier HC precedent, the Court ruled the mechanical approval ineffective, deciding the issue in favour of the respondent/assessee and against the appellant/revenue. en-us Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780520 HC held that the approval under s.153D was mechanically given without application of mind and therefore invalid. The PCIT failed to record genuine concurrence; a bare "Yes" was treated as rubber-stamp approval. Applying earlier HC precedent, the Court ruled the mechanical approval ineffective, deciding the issue in favour of the respondent/assessee and against the appellant/revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780520