“notice under section 148”

ReassessmentSection 148Section 1487,377 judgments

The decision most relied on for notice under section 148 is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on notice under section 148

CIT v. Kabul Chawla

380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court

3,235

citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society

397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court

1,589

citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO

259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court

1,349

citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,030

citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO

236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court

862

citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

469 ITR 46 · 2024 · Supreme Court

713

citing judgments

The legal fiction created by the Ashish Agarwal judgment stops the limitation clock for Section 148 notices from the date of the deemed notice. Orders issued without proper jurisdiction, or those inconsistent with statutory prescriptions, are a nullity, and there can be no waiver of such fundamental jurisdictional requirements.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court

695

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

Tin Box Company v. CIT

249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court

624

citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

Judgments citing notice under section 148

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3285/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

153A is set in motion, the jurisdiction of AO under s. 147 is ousted and the AO is not empowered to issue separate notice under Section 148 of the Act to assess undisclosed income which came to his knowledge from independent source on exchange of information etc. by the sovereign

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6610/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6608/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6605/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6604/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Divyesh Bhupendra Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 802/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

proves that the assessee had allegedly made payment of Rs. 55,00,000/- in cash to Navratna Developers on the basis of which notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued in the case of the assessee. In the said letters, the assessee submitted that there

Shah Jitendrakumar Mafatlal HUF, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263

Shah for a sum of ₹ 47,50,000/-. In the order passed under section 147 of the Act, the assessing officer observed that notice under section 148 had been issued upon the assessee on the basis of information that the assessee has entered into Shah Jitendrakumar Mafatlal HUF vs. PCIT

Karamshibhai Meghjibhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(4) (Previously the ITO, Ward-3, Navsari), Petlad

ITA 258/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 45

assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration under Section 139(1) of the Act. Consequently, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer on March 28, 2019, which remained uncompiled with. Thereafter, multiple opportunities of hearings were

Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 1414/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1414/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rahul GayakwadFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149

stood at relevant time prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 reads as under : “Time limit for notice (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless

Murari Mohan Moni, Purulia vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Purulia

ITA 832/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Murari Mohan Moni Income Tax Officer, Ward No.13, Munsefdanga Ward 3(3), Purulia, Raghunathpur, Vs. West Bengal-713304 West Bengal-723133 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adqpm3685E Assessee By : Shri Sheikh Muhammad Asif Ali, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sheikh Muhammad Asif Ali, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Patra, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 50C

return for A.Y. 2012-13 electronically filed on 14th June, 2013, declaring income of ₹99,525/-. Thereafter, the case reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act followed by validly serving notices under Section 143(2), 142(1) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer called

Income Tax Officer - 19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kuverben Kantilal Raval, Mumbai

In the result all the grounds of the appeal of the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2066/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm A.Y.2013-14 The Income Tax Officer Kunverben Ratilal Raval 7, Taldhwaj Bhavan 19 (2) (2) Mumbai 3 Road 503, 5Th Floor, Pinjrapole Lane Vs. Piramal Chambers Mumbai 400004 Lal Baug, Parel Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aadpr8076L Assessee By Mr Mitesh Mehta Ca Revenue By Shri P D Chougule Adl Cit Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 14-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Section 131Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 148

9/3/2016 wherein the assessed income was determined at Rs. 1,059,400/–. 4. Subsequently the reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing a notice under section 148 on 24/4/2024. The reassessment was done wherein the reasons were recorded about client Modification code for stated transactions at NSEL platform which ... after making an addition under section 14 A of Rs. 18,950/–. Subsequently the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 and 24/4/2021. Reasons recorded mentions that the assessee has entered modified trade transaction in pursuance of his activity in NSEL platform

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2557/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 9(1)(vi)

rendering such assessment to be void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. AO while issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, 148A(b) of the Act and passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act erred in not obtaining prior approval

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2556/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 9(1)(vi)

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2432/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2017-18]

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakakr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

condonation of delay. During the pendency of disposal of the condonation application by the Hon'ble Board, the Appellant was served a notice under section 148 of the Act on March 31, 2022. In response to the notice Appellant filed a return of income on April 28, 2022. Thereafter ... return for the purpose of condonation of delay II Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act 4 31-Mar 23 Notice under section 148 of the Act 5 28-Apr 23 Income tax return filed in response to notice under section 148 09- June 22 (a) Notice under section

Waive Premises Private Limited, Andheri West vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2847/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2015-16 Waive Premises Private Limited Nfac, Delhi / Ito Ward 11(3)(1), Mumbai 4, Kingston, Shastri Nagar, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Dabade, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-16, the notice was issued under section 148 on 26/03/2021. The reason recorded for issuing notice under section 148 is purchase of immovable property in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2015-16, However there was no such purchase of Immovable

Mumbai Police Wefare Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-17(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: ShriP.D.Chougule(Addl.CIT) SR DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

welfare of the state government employees. Accordingly, after the advice from tax consultant, the assessee filed first ROI for A.Y. 2015-16. The notice under section 148 was issued and the case was reopened under section 147 for impugned assessment year. After receiving the notice, the assessee immediately filed ... filer of ROI for the impugned assessment year. But there wassufficient amount of TDS was deducted on income. After receiving the notice under section 148, the return was filed which was before receiving of the recorded reason and the tax was paid in full. In the assessment ld. AOaccepted

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Motech Software Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2295/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 69

Income-tax Act, 1961, is obtained vide letter NO. CIT-8/MUM/147 (Mo Tech)/2011-12 dated 14-03-2012. Issue notice under section 148 of the Incоте Tax Act, 1961”. The reasons recorded for A.Υ. 2007-08:- “The assessee company electronically filed its return of income ... Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the case is reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and notice under section 148 of the Act shall be issued as per law.” In the reassessment proceedings, the AO assessed the deposit amounts kept in the name of above said entities

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Motech Software Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2294/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal &

Section 69

Preet International Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3600/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarpreet International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 240, Ff, Dda Office Complex Circle-20(1), Cycle Market, Jhandewalan New Delhi Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco9321J Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case