K.M. Sharma v. ITO

254 ITR 772Supreme Court of India2002#754 most cited

What is K.M. Sharma v. ITO authority for?

Where the period of limitation for issuing a notice under section 148 has expired before an amendment to the law takes effect, the amended provision, if not expressly retrospective, cannot revive the expired period of limitation to reopen concluded proceedings.

136

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.M. Sharma v. ITO · Section 148 · Section 149 · limitation · revival of expired limitation · retrospective amendment · prospective amendment · certainty and finality

Also reported as

122 Taxmann 426

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69ASection 149Section 150Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 150(1)section 158basection 150section 150(2)unexplained jewellerysection 18section 70section 33(4)

Judgments citing K.M. Sharma v. ITO

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Subhash Chandra Banka, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 294/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…9 i.e. Time limit for notices under section 54 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others 148 of the Act. While dealing with that provision the apex court in the case of K. M. Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer [122 Taxmann 426 (SC) ] while dealing with the judgment of the land revenue case and thereby the reopening of the case has in detailed analysis the provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order of an appeal and time limit. The relevant finding is reproduced in full because this will clarify the issue on hand with that of the case decided by…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Subhash Chandra Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 293/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…150 i.e. Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal and section 149 i.e. Time limit for notices under section 148 of the Act. While dealing with that provision the apex court in the case of K. M. Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer [122 Taxmann 426 (SC) ] while dealing with the judgment of the land revenue case and thereby the reopening of the case has in detailed analysis the provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order of an appeal and time limit. The relevant finding is reproduced in full because this will clarify the issue on hand with that of the case decided by…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vipul Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 292/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…150 i.e. Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal and section 149 i.e. Time limit for notices under section 148 of the Act. While dealing with that provision the apex court in the case of K. M. Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer [122 Taxmann 426 (SC) ] while dealing with the judgment of the land revenue case and thereby the reopening of the case has in detailed analysis the provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order of an appeal and time limit. The relevant finding is reproduced in full because this will clarify the issue on hand with that of the case decided by…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Vipul Banka, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 291/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

….e. Time limit for notices undersection 54 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others 148 of the Act. While dealing with that provision the apex court in the case of K. M. Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer [122 Taxmann 426 (SC) ] while dealing with the judgment of the land revenue case and thereby the reopening of the case has in detailed analysis the provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order of an appeal and time limit. The relevant finding is reproduced in full because this will clarify the issue on hand with that of the case decide…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Priya Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 289/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…150 i.e. Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal and section 149 i.e. Time limit for notices under section 148 of the Act. While dealing with that provision the apex court in the case of K. M. Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer [122 Taxmann 426 (SC) ] while dealing with the judgment of the land revenue case and thereby the reopening of the case has in detailed analysis the provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order of an appeal and time limit. The relevant finding is reproduced in full because this will clarify the issue on hand with that of the case decided by…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Priya Dewan, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 288/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

…150 i.e. Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal and section 149 i.e. Time limit for notices under section 148 of the Act. While dealing with that provision the apex court in the case of K. M. Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer [122 Taxmann 426 (SC) ] while dealing with the judgment of the land revenue case and thereby the reopening of the case has in detailed analysis the provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order of an appeal and time limit. The relevant finding is reproduced in full because this will clarify the issue on hand with that of the case decided by…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Animesh Agarwal, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 290/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025

…150 i.e. Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal and section 149 i.e. Time limit for notices under section 148 of the Act. While dealing with that provision the apex court in the case of K. M. Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer [122 Taxmann 426 (SC) ] while dealing with the judgment of the land revenue case and thereby the reopening of the case has in detailed analysis the provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order of an appeal and time limit. The relevant finding is reproduced in full because this will clarify the issue on hand with that of the case decided by…

Ashok Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1225/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.& Sh. Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 5

…ated has to be in accordance with the mandatory condition prescribed u/s 148A, 148 and 149 of the Act. 4.3 The law is well settled that the provisions prescribing time must be strictly interpreted as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.M Sharma v. ITO [(2002) 254 ITR 772, 777(SC)]. Even where no limit is prescribed for taking an action under a statutory provision, delay or rather inordinate delay may be an aspect the court can consider for quashing proceedings [CIT v. Harinagar Sugar Lad, (1989) 176 ITR 289, 291 (Bom), special leave petition dismissed by the Court: (1992) 197 ITR (St.) 1 (SC), applying Chimanram…

DCIT Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5141/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…mitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be restored for reopening of concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. In that decision the case of K.M. Sharma vs ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) was also referred wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given ret…

DCIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5140/MUM/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…mitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be restored for reopening of concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. In that decision the case of K.M. Sharma vs ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) was also referred wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given ret…

DCIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5121/MUM/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…mitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be restored for reopening of concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. In that decision the case of K.M. Sharma vs ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) was also referred wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given ret…

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5117/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…mitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be restored for reopening of concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. In that decision the case of K.M. Sharma vs ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) was also referred wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given ret…

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4348/MUM/2024[2003 04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…mitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be restored for reopening of concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. In that decision the case of K.M. Sharma vs ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) was also referred wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given ret…

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4347/MUM/2024[2004 05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…mitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be restored for reopening of concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. In that decision the case of K.M. Sharma vs ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) was also referred wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given ret…

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4346/MUM/2024[2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…mitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be restored for reopening of concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. In that decision the case of K.M. Sharma vs ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) was also referred wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given ret…

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4345/MUM/2024[2006 07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…mitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be restored for reopening of concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. In that decision the case of K.M. Sharma vs ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) was also referred wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given ret…

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4331/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…mitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be restored for reopening of concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. In that decision the case of K.M. Sharma vs ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) was also referred wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given ret…

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4324/MUM/2024[2002 03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…mitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be restored for reopening of concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. In that decision the case of K.M. Sharma vs ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC) was also referred wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation was intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and therefore, proceedings which had attained finality under the existing law due to bar of limitation could not be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision was clearly given ret…

DCIT, Laxminagar vs. Turner General Entertainment Networks India Private Limited, Mahipalpur Delhi

In the result, assessee's appeal is partly

ITA 473/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Vs Turner General Laxmi Nagar Entertainment Net Works New Delhi India Limited Mahipalpur Delhi Tan No. Deln08096E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 271CSection 3

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT Vs Turner General Laxmi Nagar Entertainment Net works New Delhi India Limited Mahipalpur Delhi TAN No. DELN08096E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellants by Sh. Pravin Rawal, CIT DR Respondent by Sh.Manuj Sabharwal Advocate Sh.Druna Negi, Advocate Sh. Devvat Tiwari Advocate Date of hearing: 14/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 14/11/2024 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissio…

The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda vs. Smt. Manjulaben Bipinchandra Patel, Baroda

ITA 50/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…mendment coming into force. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of this legal proposition: 1. S. S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. - (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); 2. J. P. Jani vs. Induprasad D. Bhatt - (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC); 3. K M Sharma vs. ITO - (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC); 4. Varkey Jacob v. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 146 (Ker) 5. C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. - (2021) 21 taxmann.com 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices vs. UOI- (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj); 7. Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT - (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324 (Del): 8. DCIT v. Smt. Indira D. Thakkar - (2022) 138 taxmann.com 428 (Mum); 9. DCIT v. Smt. Deval D. Thakkar -…