“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3202/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that assessment for the impugned assessment year has been re-opened within four years from the end of the relevant assessment years. Further, there is tangible material in the possession of the AO to form reasonable belief of escapement ... completion of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. The law is very clear in as much as wherever assessment is re-opened within four years or beyond years, but the basis for re-opening of assessment should be on the basis of fresh material come to the possession

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3201/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

Sabari Foundations P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 2744/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:2744/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2010 - 2011

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT heavily relied on the reasons recorded and stated that the assessment is within four years and it is clearly covered by the Explanation 2 (c) of Section 147 of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1512/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel

equal to or more than one lakh rupees. If such amount is less than Rs. 1 lakh then the proceedings must be initiated within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. By the same logic the proceedings u/s. 201(1) must be completed by passing an order

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1511/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel

M/S. Paras Plastic Processors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR

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

assessment has been reopened on 19/03/2015 has been reopened on 19/03/2015, which is within four , which is within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)

Section 80Section 801B(10)

local a4 authority on or after the 1st daf 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 ... 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 A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Atul Properties which the housing project is approved by the local authority

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)

Section 80Section 801B(10)

M/S. Reddy Structures (Private) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1303/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 80I

case where a housing project has been, or, is approved by the local authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2004, within four years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority. Explanation.—For the purposes of this

M/S. Reddy Structures (Private) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1302/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 80I

Hsbc Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by assessee is allowed and assessment order framed found to be without jurisdiction

ITA 7292/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalhsbc Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Mercantile Bank Chamber, 16 Veer Nariman, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aabch0007N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(1)(2) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Niraj Sheth, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.10.2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Distinct & Separate & Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 6, Mumbai [‘Cit(A)’] Erred In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Initiated After Four Years From The End Of Relevant Assessment Year, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Made & The Appellant Had Disclosed Fully & Truly All Material Facts Necessary

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 40A(9)

change of opinion of the AO is bad in law. This was the case where the AO had reopened the assessment within four years from the end of the Assessment Year under appeal. d) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, being the jurisdictional High Court in our case

Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

ITA 696/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.696/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2015-16) Hubtown Limited, Cts No. 469A, Hubtown Seasons, 1, R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaaca6101D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit (Central), Room No. 663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’] Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 80I

focal 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

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

taxable income or that he had formed any opinion in respect thereof. If looking back it appears to the Assessing Officer (albeit within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year) that a particular item even though reflected on the record was not subjected to assessment

M N Dastur & Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2443/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunatha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR), ITAT, Bangalore

Section 115WSection 234DSection 244A

assessment which is as follows:- Page 4 of 8 4. The ld. AR submitted that no notice u/s. 115WH(4) could be issued within four years from the end of relevant assessment year with the approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. According

Mr Jasjeet Singh M Chaddah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21 (3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7956/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23(1)(a)

formed an opinion. In my considered opinion reasoning of learned CIT(A) may have some iota of substance if the reopening was done within four years. In the present 4 Jasjeet Singh M. Chaddah case as mandated by the Act no reopening can be done unless there is failure

Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7213/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Advanced Enzyme The Asst. Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Room No.22, 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Sun Magnetica, „A‟ Wing, Ashar It Partk, Ambika Vs. 5Th Floor, Lic Service Road, Nagar, Road No.16Z, Wagle Louiswadi, Thane(W) Estate, Thane (W), Mumbai-400 604 Mumbai- 400 604 Pan No. Aacfe7262L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, MsFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, DR

Section 10Section 143Section 147Section 148

year 2010 – 11.” 14 Original income was required to be assessed for assessment year 2010 – 11 and therefore it could have been reopened within four years from the end of the assessment year even if there is no failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material

Morgan Ventures Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8238/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 8238/Del/2019 [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151

have been recorded above (refer paragraphs 1-3). As the re-opening of the case relates to assessment year 2014- 15 which is within four years, the approval of Ld. JCIT, Central Range- 04, New Delhi is required in this case. A proposal for issuing notice

M/S Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri KVSR. Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to accommodation entries’. This being the case, it was submitted, the bar of taking action within four years would not apply and, consequently, the notice under section 148 was valid. This argument suffers from several infirmities. First of all, the respondents cannot

Interglobal Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 148/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rocktim Saikia, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

reopen concluded assessment: On the basis of information received by the AO assessment (i) could be reopened. This had to be within four years. Where facts material for assessment are not disclosed in (ii) the course of assessment, whether within or beyond four years. 6.1 Supervening these two requirements

Jansampark Advertising & Marketing P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-4(2) (Now Ward-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3132/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to accommodation entries" . This being the case, it was submitted, the bar of taking action within four years would not apply and, consequently, the notice under section 148 was valid. 31. This argument suffers from several infirmities. First of all, the respondents