← 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

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Himatnagar, Himatnagar vs. Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Himatnagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 934/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Ward-1, बनाम/ Asian Parivar, V/S. Himatnagar. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D & C.O No.18/Ahd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Asian Parivar, बनाम/ Ward-1, V/S. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar. Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022), the said notice was treated as a notice under section 148A(b). The assessee was issued show cause notice under section 148A(b) dated 26.05.2022 and was ultimately issued notice under section 148 dated ... after passing an order under section 148A(d). In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 19.01.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 3,27,580/-, which was the same as originally filed. The reassessment proceedings culminated in the order passed under section 147 read with section 144B dated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, New Delhi vs. Harish Kumar, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4676/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 94(7)

judicial dictum laid down in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), the Ld. JAO initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 01.06.2022, requiring the appellant to furnish a show-cause response by 17.06.2022 as to why a notice under Section ... submitted objections on 17.06.2022. However, disregarding these submissions, the Ld. JAO summarily rejected the appellant's contentions and proceeded to issue a notice under Section 148A(d) along with a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 29.07.2022. 2.2. It is pertinent to note that, in the case

Harish Kumar, Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4602/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 94(7)

judicial dictum laid down in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), the Ld. JAO initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 01.06.2022, requiring the appellant to furnish a show-cause response by 17.06.2022 as to why a notice under Section ... submitted objections on 17.06.2022. However, disregarding these submissions, the Ld. JAO summarily rejected the appellant's contentions and proceeded to issue a notice under Section 148A(d) along with a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 29.07.2022. 2.2. It is pertinent to note that, in the case

Prabhat Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 1(1)(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1666/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Prabhat Kumar, Vs Acit, 2-A, Prem Shanti Kunj, Int. Tax 1(1)(1), 2-Club Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Delhi – 110 054. Pan: Aacpk2240A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessees Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2024 Passed By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, It Comes Up That Amongst Other Grounds On Merits & Also Legal Grounds, The Assessee Has Raised Grounds No.2 & 3 As Follows:- “2. That Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Read With Section 148 Of The Act For The Instant Assessment Year Are Barred By Limitation & Both The Initiation Of Proceedings & Assumption Of Jurisdiction To Frame Order Of Assessment & Deserves To Be Quashed As Such. 3. That Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act & Assumption Of Jurisdiction To Frame Assessment U/S 147/144C(13) Of The Act Are Without Satisfying The Statutory Preconditions Provided In The Act & Therefore Without Jurisdiction & Deserve To Be Quashed As Such.”

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151

issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notice was required to be accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Thus, the AO was required to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within the said twenty-nine days notwithstanding ... time stipulated under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This period expired on 12.07.2022. 70. Since the period of limitation, as provided under Section 149(1) of the Act, had expired prior to issuance of the impugned notice on 30.07.2022. The said is squarely beyond the period of limitation

Sridhar Kumari, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 398/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sridhar Kumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 12-B, First Street, Ellappa Nagar, Income Tax, Kanchipuram 631 502. Non Corporate Circle 22(1), (Tbm), Chennai. [Pan:Anppk2206G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

proper specified authority is Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax [“PCCIT” in short] and drew our attention to the order dated 21.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, argued that the para 7 of the said order clearly shows that prior approval was accorded by the Principal Commissioner ... PCCIT, but, not PCIT. Since the Assessing Officer has taken prior approval from PCIT-1, Chennai for issuance of notice vide order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 21.07.2022, the reassessment made thereon, is invalid and quashed. Thus, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed