KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BLR, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a cooperative society, filed its return declaring NIL income. The case was reopened under Section 147, with the notice under Section 148 issued beyond the prescribed time limit. The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings on the grounds of limitation.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice issued for reassessment under Section 148 was barred by limitation, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings invalid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal713 citing167 Taxmann.com 70 · 2024 · SC · Read judgment
- Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal524 citing444 ITR 1 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
- Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer47 citing171 Taxmann.com 99 · 2025 · HC
- ADM Agro Industries Latur and Vizag (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT11 citing174 Taxmann.com 725 · 2025 · HC
- 70 (SC).in ITO v. Girish Kumar Gupta7 citing175 Taxmann.com 1037 · 2025
- 14. Again, in Saroj Mehndi v. ITO4 citing174 Taxmann.com 278 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 13.03.2025 for the assessment year 2016-
The assessee in the additional ground of appeal has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is barred by the time.
The assessee M/s Karnataka Telecom Department Employees Cooperative Society Limited is a cooperat
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs Lt Foods Limited, DelhiDelhi15 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on ADM Agro Industries Latur and Vizag (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the notices were beyond jurisdiction due to the Revenue's concession before the Supreme Court. For AY 2014-15, the notice issued on 28.07.2022 was found to be beyond the limitation ...
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Delhi vs Pawan Goyal, DelhiDelhi26 Aug 2025Dismissed
Also relies on ADM Agro Industries Latur and Vizag (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was indeed barred by limitation. This was based on Supreme Court and High Court decisions which established that notices issued after March 31, 2022, for the rel...
- Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward, 42(1)(2), MumbaiMumbai6 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act were barred by limitation, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Jurisdictiona...
- Brijesh Chandwani, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Circle -6(1), HyderabadHyderabad28 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid due to the lack of valid approval/sanction under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the notice and the consequential order under Section 147 were ...
- Sainik Co Operative House Building Society… vs ITO Ward 1(1), JammuAmritsar8 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation, as the 'surviving period' for issuing the notice expired before it was issued. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings ...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026