← All Phrases

“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

Cachet Engineering P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1917/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1917/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Cachet Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito-12(1)-4 Ground Floor, Anandibai 145A, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. Gosavi Chawl, Kurar K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Village, Malad (E)-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc9354L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R.A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. That The Learned Cit (A), Mumbai Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Reassessment Proceedings & Also Framing The Assessment Under Section 143(3)/147 Of The Act Determining The Income Of The Appellant At An Income Of Rs.5,05,00,000/- As Against Returned Loss Of Rs. 30,080/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 40A(3)Section 68

grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that initiating the reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act, without satisfying the statutory preconditions as envisaged under section 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings ... grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that learned AO has initiated the reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act, merely on the basis of the alleged information received from the DCIT, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai without there being

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

Mohalla Mysore. Total (B) 1,91,51,000 Net Capital Gains (A-B) NIL Page 4 of 17 2.3 The Ld.AO accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 1/01/2013. In response to the notice the assessee vide reply dated 15/01/2013 requested the Ld.AO to treat the return ... filed on 31/03/2010 as return filed in lieu of notice under section 148 of the Act. 2.4 The Ld.AO observed that during the financial year 2007-08, the assessee entered into Joint Development Agreement with Sankalp construction Pvt. Ltd. on 14.11.2007 and transferred the property used for residential purpose situated

Mr. Pratapchand P. Purohit, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2) (5), Mumbai

ITA 1703/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Pratapchand P. Income Tax Officer- Purohit, 19(2)(5), Shop No.1, 25, Khambata Matru Mandir, Vs. Lane, Tardeo Road, Khetwadi Back Road, Mumbai – 400007 Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aabpp3598B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. Ā.R. Date Of Hearing : 30 . 03 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 04 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh: The Appellant, Mr. Pradeepchand P. Purohit (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessee’) By Filing The Present Appeal, Sought To Set Aside The Impugned Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Qua The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Grounds Inter Alia That :-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. Ā.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

disposed of the appeal accordingly. 3. The Income-tax Officer - 19(2)(5), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) erred issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued ... disposed of the appeal accordingly. 3. The Income-tax Officer - 19(2)(5), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) erred issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued

Dy CIT-CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 147Section 148

letter to the Director of Audit intimating that objections raised by audit authority were not acceptable. Nevertheless the Assessing Officer reopened and issued notice under section 148 of the Act. 4. It is settled law that the opinion of the Internal Audit party of the Income Tax Department cannot

Dy CIT, CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 797/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 147Section 148

letter to the Director of Audit intimating that objections raised by audit authority were not acceptable. Nevertheless the Assessing Officer reopened and issued notice under section 148 of the Act. 4. It is settled law that the opinion of the Internal Audit party of the Income Tax Department cannot