← All Phrases

“within four years”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147391 judgments

The decision most relied on for within four years is (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (221 ITR 538), cited in 125 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on within four years

(P.) Ltd. v. ITO
221 ITR 538 · 1996 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

The sanction of a specified authority under Section 151 is a mandatory procedural check before issuing a notice under Section 148. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent mechanical reopening of assessments and harassment of the assessee.

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

Dass Khanna v. ITO
460 ITR 546 · 2024 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The authority required to grant prior approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment proceedings varies based on the applicable time limit for reassessment, as limitation is inextricably intertwined with the rank of the specified approving authority.

Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT
236 ITR 742 · 1999 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Reopening an assessment within four years to re-examine a deduction under Section 80HHC, which was wrongly allowed in the original assessment, is valid. This is illustrated by cases where reassessment was held valid for re-examining deductions based on how excise duty was treated in the balance sheet.

340 ITR 299 (Bom.) (v) Desai Bros. Ltd. v. DCIT
267 ITR 161 · 2004 · High Court
30
citing judgments

The first proviso to section 147 of the Income Tax Act applies when an assessment is re-opened within four years from the end of the assessment year. If the assessment year is within four years, the conditions of the proviso are met.

232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT
397 ITR 639 · 2017 · High Court
26
citing judgments

The approval for reopening of assessment must be obtained from the prescribed authority, which depends on whether the assessment is being reopened within four years or beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
313 ITR 170 · 2009 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Reopening assessment proceedings under Section 147 is permissible within four years, even if full and true particulars were provided during the original assessment, provided the Assessing Officer forms a prima facie opinion of underassessment or escapement of income.

CIT v. Aquatic Remedies
406 ITR 545 · 2018 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Sanction for reopening an assessment under Section 151 requires approval from the specified authority, and approval from a superior but different authority is invalid. Even if the reopening is within four years, the correct authority must grant approval.

Judgments citing within four years

Reeta Rana, Saharanpur vs. DCIT-3, Sahranpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4672/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

second question my answer would be that the assessment proceedings cannot be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment

Rajeev Behl, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 56

second question my answer would be that the assessment proceedings cannot be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment

Jar Pictures LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 4410/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Homewell Realty LLP, Andheri, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT-2, Lucknow

ITA 745/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 119(2)Section 124Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 226(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lotus Logistics and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 627/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit-Cc-7(3) Lotus Logistics & Developers Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. 1301, 13Th Level, Lotus Trade Mumbai-400020 Centre, New Link Road, Near D N Nagar Metro Station, Andheri-West, Mumbai- 700013 Pan No. Aabcl 1198 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 43C

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

DCIT Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5244/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barote, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)Section 80G

relevant provisions of section 72A read with rule 9C are very clear in this regard. These provisions clearly stipulate that after the merger, within four years, the amalgamated company should achieve at least 50% of the installed capacity of production. Though the learned Tribunal, in its order, has not discussed ... relevant, because the mark of 50% of installed capacity of production can be achieved at any point of time within four years after the date of merger, which is 1-4-2003 in the present case. Even though the exact date of crossing over the mark of 50% cannot

Sunjewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4720/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barote, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)Section 80G

relevant provisions of section 72A read with rule 9C are very clear in this regard. These provisions clearly stipulate that after the merger, within four years, the amalgamated company should achieve at least 50% of the installed capacity of production. Though the learned Tribunal, in its order, has not discussed ... relevant, because the mark of 50% of installed capacity of production can be achieved at any point of time within four years after the date of merger, which is 1-4-2003 in the present case. Even though the exact date of crossing over the mark of 50% cannot

Akshay Kumar Rungta, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), International Taxation

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

proviso is not applicable, the said precondition is not applicable. This additional requirement is not to be satisfied when reassessment proceedings are initiated within four years of the end of the assessment year. The sequitur is that when the proviso does not apply, the reassessment proceedings cannot be declared invalid

ACIT Circle 22 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rajesh Nemichand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1457/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Shreyash Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R
Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Dattatray Namdev Suryawanshi, Panvel vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 896/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Kaushik Makwana, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 147Section 194CSection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 69

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner, and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the 7 Dattatray Namdev Suryawanshi, AY 2018-19 approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner

Dandu Jojappa Francis, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2305/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Smt. Richa Bakiwala, CA &
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner, and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Uttamchand Rajmal Jain, Mumbai

In the result the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed in terms of grounds 2, 5 and 7 and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4714/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years ... Uttamchand Rajmal Jain (ii) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner

Highland Tardelink (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O, NFAC.Delhi., Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/KOL/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

been given by PCIT-1 Kol, though PCIT Kol-1,was not entitled to give approval as the reassessment proceedings were initiated within four years and it was the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax being the specified authority to grant approval. The Ld. Counsel submits that since the reassessment ... rank of competent authority. It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case reopening of assessment proceedings has been done within four years from the end of relevant assessment year. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 24.11.2011 4 I.T.A. No. 1104/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Highland Tradelink

Mark Foods, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4102/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner, and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Income Tax Officer 23 3 6, Piramal Chambers vs. Rahul Hariprasad Tibrewal, Mumbai

ITA 430/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Kumar Ramesh Sahu, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Rajkot, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

cannot be stated that the AO formed any opinion with respect to any of the aspects arising in such return. Whether beyond or within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is substantially wider. The apex Court in case of Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers

Dalpat Baraiya, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1692/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 54B

regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income ... escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

Malkiat Agro Industries 01, Cantt Road, Nabha 147201, Punjab vs. Lovish Shelley the DCIT Circle Mandigobind Garh Jao Income Tax Officer Nabha, Punjab

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 485/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri K.K. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

years without there being any tangible material on record, deserves to be quashed, irrespective of the fact, whether the assessment have been framed within four years or beyond four years and, as such, the reopening having been merely made on account of change of opinion, which is not permitted

ACIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. M Nalin & Co, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s cross objection No

ITA 684/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit-19(1), Mumbai Vs M Nalin & Co 5Th 805,8Th Floor, Prasad Chambers, 506, Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400 Tata Road No.02, Opera House 012 Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Aaafm3223H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. R.R Makwana, Addl.CIT
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

under Section 148 beyond four years for the relevant assessment year raises a significant legal distinction between cases where such notice is issued within four years and those where it is issued beyond the prescribed time limit. The recorded reasons incorrectly imply that the assessee had not filed a return