← 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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Year Objection No

ITA 2620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Faroog IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 taken place within four years that may legitimately give rise _to an inference of escapement of income. The new information which has come _to the knowledge of the Revenue would, therefore, constitute tangible material. 16. The judgment _of the Division Bench ... Assessment Years 2012-2013. We note that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that where the reopening has taken place within four years that may legitimately give rise to an inference of escapement of income. The ‘new information’ which has come to the knowledge of the Revenue subsequent

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 taken place within four years that may legitimately give rise to an inference of escapement of income. The new information which has come to the knowledge of the Revenue would, therefore, constitute tangible material. 16. The judgment of the Division Bench ... Assessment Years 2012-2013. 44. We note that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that where the reopening has taken place within four years that may legitimately give rise to an inference of escapement of income. The ‘new information’ which has come to the knowledge of the Revenue

ITO(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3674/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

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 (It)-3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3523/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

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 (International Taxation) 3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3440/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

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

Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/JPR/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Agarwal, Jaipur. (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 ... 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

Rajbir Singh, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3104/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Rajbir Singh Vs. Acit 1625A, The Magnolia, Dlf Central Circle-19, City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Khandewalan, Haryana New Delhi Pan: Aaups2176H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 Order

Section 13ASection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

31st March 2021 . According to the Income Tax Officer , in view of the above , Assessment Year 2015- 2016 which falls under the category within four years as on 31st March 2020, the statutory approval for issuance o f notice under Section 148 o f the A ct for the Assessmet

Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1633/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd..….……………….……….……….……Appellant 3Rd Floor, Baid Property, 10, Canning Street, Burra Bazar, Kol-1.. [Pan: Aabck1388B] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee 2. Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Said Return Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Reason That The Assessee Is The Beneficiary Of Credit Of Rs.1,28,38,232/- From Penny Stock Company M/S Steel Exchange Ltd. Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 14.07.2022. The Assessing Officer Passed An Ex Parte Order U/S 147 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 29.05.2023 Adding Rs.1,28,38,391/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 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

Bimla Devi Agrawal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

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

ITA 1690/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(15)Section 250

assessment order under 153(1) on or before 31.12.2017 and then invoking subsection (15) of Section 155 and amend the assessment order within four years thereafter, is found to be justifiable. 6.3. In this connection, sub-section (15) of Section 155 is reproduced as follows: (15)- where in the assessment

ACIT(It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Barclays Execution Services Limited, London

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4253/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025

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

Section 144CSection 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

Kajal Batra, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-52(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

escaped assessment. 9. Here in this case, one important aspect which needs to be kept in mind that the reopening has been done within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, the law contained in proviso to section 147 of the Act will not apply whereby

Kalpanaben Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 928/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, AR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 1ISection 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 68

assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment The case is within four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice is 148 of the Act has been oblaried from Addl Commissioner

Anupama Vintrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1313/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Anupama Vintrade Pvt. Ltd..….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 77, 4Th Floor, Room 422, Elliot Road, Kol-700016.. [Pan: Aahca5675R] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.03.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 14 Days. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 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

ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Alex Tradecom Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2198/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [Pan: Aajca6146P] Appearances By: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 05.08.2024 & 26.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue With Delays Of 38 Days. The Revenue Has Filed Separate Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid And

Section 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

ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata vs. Alex Tradecom Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2197/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [Pan: Aajca6146P] Appearances By: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 05.08.2024 & 26.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue With Delays Of 38 Days. The Revenue Has Filed Separate Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid And

Section 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

Balachandra Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 989/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 V. Balchandra Builders Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.10 Venkataratnam Nagar, Adyar, Income Tax, Chennai- 600 020. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb6727A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate, : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Writ Appeal No.220 of 2021 dated 19.06.2025. 5. Per contra, the Ld.DR Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT contended that in the present case, the reopening is within four years hence, the proviso 147 does not apply. Even in the original assessment u/s.143(3), this issue was not at all discussed or raised ... More over, the Apex Court in Kelvinator India Ltd., (supra) considered the case of reassessment that has been initiated within four years. Reasons for reopening merely reiterated materials that was already on record, as a result that the Bench came to the conclusion that the proceedings were

M.A. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 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 4 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner

J vs. Exports, Maduraivs.DCIT, Ncc-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2059/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14 Jvs Export, Deputy Commissioner Of No.32, Sarojini Street, Vs. Income Tax, Chinna Chokkikulam, Non-Corporate Circle-2 Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 002. [Pan:Aabfj2836N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Vide Order Dated 21.05.2025. 2. The Preliminary Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Reopening The Assessment In The Instant Case. 3. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Had Filed Its

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 43(5)Section 73(1)

COPY assessee. 10. More over, the Apex Court in Kelvinator India Ltd., (supra) considered the case of reassessment that has been initiated within four years. Reasons for reopening merely reiterated materials that was already on record, as a result that the Bench came to the conclusion that the proceedings were ... Assessing Officer. In the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. 12. Therefore, it is clear, a reassessment made within four years or beyond four years has to be based on tangible material de hors that is available on record that has come to the notice

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vasudev Tripathi, Ahmedabad

ITA 297/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in the case of the assessee on 13.03.2019 which is well within four years from the end of the relevant year?" I.T.A No. 297/Ahd/2025 Vasudev Tripathi, A.Y. 2014-15 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case