“notice under section 148”

Zahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalzahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh A/10 Jai Hind Society, Asalpha Gahtkopar Link, Ro Mohili Village Sakinaka, Mumbai - 400072 ............... Appellant Pan: Buups3134C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400020

into a transaction of purchase of immovable property, wherein the assessee has not transacted as per the stamp value rate of the property, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.07.2022. During the proceedings pursuant to the notice issued under section 148

Nikhil Raghuvir Kshirsagar, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnikhil Raghuvir Kshirsagar Vs Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai 404, Neelesh Society, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vidyalaya Marg, Mulund East, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- Mumbai-400081 400051 Pan:Aykpk2549N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv. & Ms. Vinita Nara, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) 57 (For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A), Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2015-16, Date Of Order 12.11.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department (For 2

Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal reported in 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) in para no.19(b) of the said order the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 on or after 01/04/2021 is invalid. The revenue has made concession before the Hon’ble Apex ... Bombay High Court has repeatedly applied this principle and quashed reassessment notices in identical fact situations. In the present case, the impugned notice under section 148 was issued on 15/04/2022, well beyond the legally permissible period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings lack jurisdiction from their inception. The Ld. DR, despite relying

Aparna Biswas, Mumbai vs. Ld. AO, Ld AO National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

change of opinion; (ii) that the mandatory approval under section 151 of the Act has not been validly granted; and (iii) that the notice under section 148 has been issued in violation of section 151A of the Act read with CBDT Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. 3. At the outset ... digital signature. 7. The legal position on this aspect is no longer res integra. Section 151 of the Act mandates that no notice under section 148 shall be issued unless there is a prior sanction of the specified authority. Such approval is not an empty or 4 Aparna Biswas mechanical

Anthonette Joaquim Anthony, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

following grounds: 1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in issuing of notice under section 148 dated 22.03.2024 in violation of provisions contained in section 151A as held by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in initiating reassessment under section 147 by issuing invalid notice under section 148 on 22.03.2024 directing to file ITR "within 30 days from the issue of the notice". 4) In the facts and in the circumstances

Devanand Amarnath Parkar, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(4)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra East

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

dated 30/07/2022 i.e After expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year 2017-18 without appreciating that notice under section 148 can be issued beyond 3 years only if income escapement is above 50 lacs, in fact of present case the impugned notice issued ... case and law, the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the fact that the assumption of Ld. AO in issuing notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without mentioning the DIN Number on notice itself which is violation of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated

Bhushan Vasant Parelkar, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

record is tabulated below for ready reference, as furnished by the ld. Counsel for the assessee: Sr.No. Event Date/days 1 Original notice under section 148 which 31.05.2021 is deemed to be notice under section 148A(b) 2 Last day to issue notice under section 148 as 30.06.2021 extended by TOLA ... Therefore, last day to issue notice under 08.07.2022 section 148 of the Act considering the surviving period 7 Date of issue of notice under section 148 of 27.07.2022 the Act 8 Impugned Assessment order passed 31.05.2023 5. We have heard both the parties on their submissions relating to legal ground

Nevin H. Bharwani, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailnevin H. Bharwani, 5Th Floor, Noor-E-Rehmat, 50 B.J. Road, Bandra West, Mumbai ............... Appellant Pan : Alrpb8270H V/S Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward – 1(2)(1), Room No.530D, 5Th Floor, ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Asif Karmali Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr

order under section 148A(d) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) dated 21st March 2024; - and issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 21st March 2024 in violation of the provisions of section 151A of the Act read with e-Assessment ... proceedings under section 148A of the Act were initiated, and an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed, and a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 21.03.2024. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed

Sudhir Motiram Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalsudhir Motiram Patil C/O Hukumchand Jain, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400013 ............... Appellant Pan: Avvpp1813G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, ……………… Respondent Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

outset, submitted that the sanction of the appropriate authority under section 151 of the Act was not sought prior to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The learned AR submitted that in addition to the above, the notice issued under section 148 ... consideration, and thus the source of cash deposit remained undisclosed an unexplained in the hands of the assessee, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 18/05/2021. 5. Subsequently, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India

Aeon Commercial India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai, Mumabi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Officer recorded satisfaction and obtained approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai under section 151 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2024. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had received accommodation entries aggregating ... factually incorrect information. It was submitted that as per the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer at the time of issuance of notice under section 148, it was alleged that the assessee had received accommodation entries aggregating to Rs. 1,18,69,619/-. However, it was emphatically contended that

Akshay Deepak Talim, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“/earned AR”), at the outset, submitted that the reopening of assessment is time- barred as the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The learned AR, by referring ... submitted that even the extended period of 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act is not available to the Revenue as the income chargeable to tax, which can be alleged to have escaped assessment, is less than Rs.50

Govind Mansharam Dingwa, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

notice is mentioned. The relevant extract of Section 149 of the Act is reproduced here for Your Honour's kind perusal: "(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless ... been escaped assessment for the transaction amount exceeding Rs.50,00,000/-. In light of the above, the issuance of notice under Section 148 after a period of three years on the ground that income exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- has escaped assessment is factually incorrect. The said notice is thus

Govind Mansharam Dingwa, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

notice is mentioned. The relevant extract of Section 149 of the Act is reproduced here for Your Honour's kind perusal: "(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless ... been escaped assessment for the transaction amount exceeding Rs.50,00,000/-. In light of the above, the issuance of notice under Section 148 after a period of three years on the ground that income exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- has escaped assessment is factually incorrect. The said notice is thus

Navgrahaa Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnavgrahaa Jewels Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner 7(1)(1), Unit No.341 & 342, Pragati Mumbai Industrial Esrate, N. M. Joshi Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai-400011 Pan: Aaecn0220G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14, Date Of Order 11.11.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment

148A(b) of the Act was duly issued on 25.06.2021, and the assessee filed its reply in compliance thereto on 26.05.2022. Thereafter, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.07.2022. The Ld. AR contended that, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), the notice under section 148 was issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer beyond the permissible surviving period and is, therefore, bad in law. It was further submitted that the computation of the surviving period has been duly annexed

Komal Enterprises, Dombivali vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4421/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

duly examined by the Ld. AO and the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act was consciously allowed. While issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had developed commercial units within the project, that the built-up area of certain

Komal Enterprises, Dombivali vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4421/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

duly examined by the Ld. AO and the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act was consciously allowed. While issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had developed commercial units within the project, that the built-up area of certain