← 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

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1539/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Nos. Assessee Revenue A.Ys 1536 To 1539/ Hyd/2025 Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad Pan:Ckmpk5466J Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1), Hyderabad 2015-16 & 2016-17 निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: || Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: | 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili ("The Assessee") Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151A(1)Section 153

assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. In Page 3 of 20 ITA Nos. 1536 to 1539 of 2025 Sukesini Kumili this regards the Ld. AR submitted ... that the notice issued under section 148 as well as the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act were by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), which is contrary to the scheme of faceless reassessment introduced by the CBDT. In this regards

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1538/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Ys Nos. 1536 To 1539/ Sukesini Kumili, Income Tax Officer 2015-16 & Hyd/2025 Hyderabad Ward 15(1),Hyderabad 2016-17 Pan:Ckmpk5466J िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili (“The Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: : Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. In Page 3 of 20 ITA Nos. 1536 to 1539 of 2025 Sukesini Kumili this regards the Ld. AR submitted ... that the notice issued under section 148 as well as the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act were by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), which is contrary to the scheme of faceless reassessment introduced by the CBDT. In this regards

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1537/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Ys Nos. 1536 To 1539/ Sukesini Kumili, Income Tax Officer 2015-16 & Hyd/2025 Hyderabad Ward 15(1),Hyderabad 2016-17 Pan:Ckmpk5466J िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili (“The Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: : Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. In Page 3 of 20 ITA Nos. 1536 to 1539 of 2025 Sukesini Kumili this regards the Ld. AR submitted ... that the notice issued under section 148 as well as the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act were by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), which is contrary to the scheme of faceless reassessment introduced by the CBDT. In this regards

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1536/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Ys Nos. 1536 To 1539/ Sukesini Kumili, Income Tax Officer 2015-16 & Hyd/2025 Hyderabad Ward 15(1),Hyderabad 2016-17 Pan:Ckmpk5466J िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili (“The Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: : Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. In Page 3 of 20 ITA Nos. 1536 to 1539 of 2025 Sukesini Kumili this regards the Ld. AR submitted ... that the notice issued under section 148 as well as the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act were by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), which is contrary to the scheme of faceless reassessment introduced by the CBDT. In this regards

Kotapaduprimary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 764/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.763 & 764/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kotapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Agricultural Cooperative Ward – 1 Society, Prakasam Ongole Pan:Aabak5758P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A C. Subrahamanyam राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Both Dated 28.02.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19 & A.Y. 2019-20 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A C. SubrahamanyamFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 249(3)

order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B is vitiated by legal infirmities. The notices issued by the jurisdictional A.O (ITO Ward-1,Ongole) under sections 148A(d) dated 07.04.2022 and 148 dated 09.04.2022 are contrary to the mandatory provisions of sections 144B, 130 and 151A of the Income ... therefore, invalid. 2. The show cause notice under section 148A(b) dated 24.03.2022, served on the same day, is invalid for failure to provide the statutorily required 7 clear days for compliance. As per settled legal principles, exclusion of the date of service and the terminal date is mandatory

Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 763/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.763 & 764/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kotapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Agricultural Cooperative Ward – 1 Society, Prakasam Ongole Pan:Aabak5758P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A C. Subrahamanyam राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Kotapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Both Dated 28.02.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19 & A.Y. 2019-20 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: C.A C. SubrahamanyamFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandit P, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 249(3)

order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B is vitiated by legal infirmities. The notices issued by the jurisdictional A.O (ITO Ward-1,Ongole) under sections 148A(d) dated 07.04.2022 and 148 dated 09.04.2022 are contrary to the mandatory provisions of sections 144B, 130 and 151A of the Income ... therefore, invalid. 2. The show cause notice under section 148A(b) dated 24.03.2022, served on the same day, is invalid for failure to provide the statutorily required 7 clear days for compliance. As per settled legal principles, exclusion of the date of service and the terminal date is mandatory

U B Foods Pvt. Ltd, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward1(2), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 986/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.986/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 U B Foods Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, D 33 Midc, Audyogik Vashat, S. Ward-1(2), Jalgaon. Jalgaon S.O, Jalgaon – 425003. Pan: Aabcu1322K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde-Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 03.05.2024 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, 1961 Dated 25.05.2023 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 69A

under : Quote, “15. Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after the period of six years were over on 31.03.2022. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case ... present petitions are concerned, though dated 31.03.2021, admittedly have been issued after 01.04.2021. 16. It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 148A(b) have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) dated 04.05.2022 admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore

Hashmat Ishaq Parar, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 3973/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α No.4071/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2015-16 Ι.Τ.Α. No.3973/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2018-19 Hashmat Ishaq Parker Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Furus, Tal-Khed, District- Ratnagiri, Maharashtra- 415710 Pan : Αχορρ1815Η Appellant Income Tax Office, Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai-400051 Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 Order Per Bench: Both The Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee By Challenging The Order Of The Nfac Delhi [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Cit(A)'] Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act), Date Of Order 20/12/2024 & 06/12/2024 Related To Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Impugned Orders Emanated From The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Ratinagiri (For Brevity, ‘The Ld.Ao') Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act, Date Of Orders 20/03/2023 & 21/03/2023 For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2018-19. 2. Since All The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Involving Similar Issues Arising Out Of A Similar Factual Matrix, These Appeals Were Heard Together As A Matter Of Convenience & Are Being Decided By Way Of This Consolidated Order. With The Consent Of The Parties, The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Treated As A Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal For Ay 2018-19 Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 282A

condoned and the appeals are taken for adjudication. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment proceedings were initiated under section 148A of the Act pursuant to the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT. Thereafter, the Ld. AO completed the proceedings under section ... suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Order under sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBALST/F/145A/2021-22/1042272737(1) dated 31/03/2022 and annexed herewith for reference. 1. therefore, propose

M/S Padma Polychem Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. NFAC, Assessment Unit Itd, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 5301/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 5301/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Padma Polychem Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, 528/1, Karkari Road, Vishwash Delhi Nagar, Delhi-110032 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp4479A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Akshay Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077228877(1) Dated 19.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, 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