← 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

Nilesh Satish Shingte, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 6145/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 4Section 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; 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

Nickson Morris Rodricks, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 180/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 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

Cyrus Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4350/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 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

ACIT, Ncr Building, Jaipur vs. Hans Raj Agarwal, Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1253/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vijay, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 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

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

objections raised, stating that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act is completed on 28.03.2016 and notice issued on 18.03.2019 which is within four years from the end of the relevant year in which assessment is completed. Therefore, the AO wrongly has changed the time limit from 'four years ... principle laid down in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. is acknowledged, it is not applicable here. The notice under Section 148 was issued within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. o The AO’s reasons to believe were based on new information received post-assessment, revealing

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

objections raised, stating that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act is completed on 28.03.2016 and notice issued on 18.03.2019 which is within four years from the end of the relevant year in which assessment is completed. Therefore, the AO wrongly has changed the time limit from 'four years ... principle laid down in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. is acknowledged, it is not applicable here. The notice under Section 148 was issued within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. o The AO’s reasons to believe were based on new information received post-assessment, revealing

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 873/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

objections raised, stating that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act is completed on 28.03.2016 and notice issued on 18.03.2019 which is within four years from the end of the relevant year in which assessment is completed. Therefore, the AO wrongly has changed the time limit from 'four years

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

objections raised, stating that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act is completed on 28.03.2016 and notice issued on 18.03.2019 which is within four years from the end of the relevant year in which assessment is completed. Therefore, the AO wrongly has changed the time limit from 'four years ... principle laid down in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. is acknowledged, it is not applicable here. The notice under Section 148 was issued within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. - The AO’s reasons to believe were based on new information received post-assessment, revealing the escapement

DCIT 42 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4599/MUM/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 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 I.T.A. No. 4599/Mum/2024 6 Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Financial Shared Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and Cross

ITA 3333/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar,AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32

detail in the assessment order inter alia holding that this is not case of change of opinion. Moreover, the assessment was reopened within four years from the relevant assessment year and what was important is 'Reasons To Believe' which was apparently there in existence. He has also relied

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani, Thane

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue in the departmental appeal in relation to the relief granted by the CIT(A) on merits are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 3551/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 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

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2791/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

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

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2357/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

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

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai, Maharastra

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2355/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

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

Ra Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 2632/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali ParekhFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 3 Assessment Year 2016-17 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years ... 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

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

cases, the only requirement to Initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded in paragraph 6. The case is within four years from the end of 8 the Assessment Year under consideration. Therefore, necessary approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is solicited

Bhavya Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the assessee's appeals ITA No

ITA 4390/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2007-08
Section 250Section 80I

local authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 but not later than the 31st day of March, 2005, within four years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority; (iii) in a case where a housing project ... local authority on or after the 01st day of April, 2004 [but not later than the 31st day of March, 2005 within four years from the end of the Financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority (iii) in a case where a housing project

Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri, Navi Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Navi Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 4499/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 115BSection 131Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 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; 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 10 ITA No. 4499/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval

Cle Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6270/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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

Cle Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6269/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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