← All Phrases

“section 148A”

ReassessmentSection 148ASection 148A2,377 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 148A is Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46), cited in 713 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 148A

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.

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.
326 ITR 1 · 2010 · Supreme Court
543
citing judgments

For attracting Section 14A disallowance, there must be a proximate cause relating the expenditure to actual tax-exempt income, and such disallowance is not automatic but requires positive material. Additionally, Section 94(7) on dividend stripping only ignores losses to the extent of dividend received for assessment years post-April 1, 2002, allowing the remaining loss.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
245 ITR 360 · 2000 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO
156 Taxmann.com 178 · 2023 · High Court
213
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if the Income Tax Department fails to follow the prescribed procedures, including obtaining the necessary approvals under section 151 or adhering to the faceless assessment scheme mandates under section 151A.

Varghese v. ITO, Ernakulum
4 SCC 173 · 1981 · Reported
164
citing judgments

Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act are legally binding on the revenue authorities in their administration and implementation. This binding character applies even if the circulars depart from the correct interpretation of the law and cannot be ignored to the prejudice of the assessee.

(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.

Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu
263 ITR 658 · 2003 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

The doctrine of merger applies when appellate jurisdiction is invoked, causing the operative part of a lower court's order or decree to merge into the superior court's order, whether it reverses, modifies, or affirms the original decision. The application of this doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of statutory provisions, and the subject matter challenged.

Judgments citing section 148A

Anthonysamy Innasi, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

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

ITA 3276/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3276/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Anthonysamy Innasi, The Income Tax Officer, 187, Melaiyur, Nadar Street, Vs. Ward 1(1), Thiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur Thanjavur – 612 101. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Akfpi 0542L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 22.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. :-2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

notice that the assessee has filed a legal ground challenging the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 148A of the Act. The Ld.AR vehemently argued that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Trichy ... First Appellate Authority (FAA) 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the notice issued under section 148A of the Act dated 27.02.2024, we note that the same has been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Thanjavur [JAO], which has been

Gnanamani Thuraichi, Tenkasi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 3263/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Gnanamani Thuraichi, The Income Tax Officer, 7-3-3(8), Palace Street, Vs. Ward 1, Anaikulam, Tirunelveli Kamarajar Nagar, Tenkasi – 627 859. Pan: Bdmpg 5319J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Vishwa Padmanaban, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri K. Vishwa Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

NFAC which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. We also find that the impugned order under Clause (d) to Section 148A of the Act dated 07.04.2022 has been passed after CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022. Hence, the aforesaid CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case ... NFAC which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. We also find that the impugned order under Clause (d) to Section 148A of the Act dated 27.03.2023 has been passed after CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022. Hence, the aforesaid CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case

Inderjyot Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 8758/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8758/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Inderjyot Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, 6/2, Dlf Indl. Area, Moti Nagar, Ward-44(1), New Delhi-110015 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abyps9796E Assessee By: Sh. Rajesh Dureja, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1082168393(1) Dated 30.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Dureja, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151

department as follows: “7. The learned AO was not persuaded with the explanation provided by the petitioner and passed an order dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, holding that it was a fit case for reopening the assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act. The said ... issued a notice dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 of the Act accompanied with the order dated 29.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. It is the petitioner’s case that the said notice is barred by limitation. 9. It is material to note that the original notice under

Misrilall Jain & Sons, Singhbhum West vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish I.T.A. No.468/Ran/2025 Misrilall Jain & Sons Agarwal and CBDT Instructions dated 11.05.2022, notice under section 148A(b) was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted that the alleged escaped income of ₹1,32,63,010 had already been disclosed ... therefore, there was no further escapement of income. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s explanation and passed an order under section 148A(d) holding it to be a fit case for reopening. Consequently, another notice under section 148 dated 21.07.2022 was issued. In response, the assessee again filed