← 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

Sujatha Hariharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2490/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2490 & 2491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sujatha Hariharan, Old No.20, New No.8, Poes Road, 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. Pan: Bgcps 5734A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Both Dated 24.07.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

outset, we 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, Non-Corporate ... 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(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2022, we note that the same has been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai

Trd 309 Pallinatham Mpcs, Trichy vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2(1) Trichy, Trichy

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

ITA 2482/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2482/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Trd 309 Pallinatham The Income Tax Officer, Mpcs, Vs. Ward 2(1), Pallinatham Valavanthi Post, Trichy Musiri Tk, Tiruchirappalli – 621 211. Pan: Aafat 2275G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Alagappan, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Alagappan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
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 30.03.2023 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 ... 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

Prabu Karuppaiah, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2494/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2492, 2493 & 2494/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Prabu Karuppaiah, The Income Tax Officer, 8/115, Avudaiyarkoil Poovalur Vs. Ward 1, Bo, Pudukkottai Avadaiyar Kovil, Pudukkottai – 614 618. Pan: Clepp 3346R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
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(d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022 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

Prabu Karuppaiah, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2493/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2492, 2493 & 2494/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Prabu Karuppaiah, The Income Tax Officer, 8/115, Avudaiyarkoil Poovalur Vs. Ward 1, Bo, Pudukkottai Avadaiyar Kovil, Pudukkottai – 614 618. Pan: Clepp 3346R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
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(d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022 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

Prabhu Karuppaiah, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2492/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2492, 2493 & 2494/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Prabu Karuppaiah, The Income Tax Officer, 8/115, Avudaiyarkoil Poovalur Vs. Ward 1, Bo, Pudukkottai Avadaiyar Kovil, Pudukkottai – 614 618. Pan: Clepp 3346R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
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(d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022 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

Vijaya Kanika, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation

ITA 835/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.835/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Vijaya Kanika Vs. Income Tax Officer Tirupati Ward 1(3) Pan:Dldpk8672K Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Shri E Phalguna Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mr. Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Vijaya Kanika (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 18.03.2025 For The A.Y 2016-017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: C.A Shri E Phalguna KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

merits. In this regards the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act and as well as the order under section 148A(d) of the Act were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead Page 3 of 25 ITA No 835 of 2025 Vijaya Kanika ... which is contrary to the scheme of faceless reassessment introduced by the CBDT. 5. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the same date. He demonstrated that both