← All Phrases

“order under section 148A(d)”

ReassessmentSection 148ASection 148A771 judgments

The decision most relied on for order under section 148A(d) is Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1), cited in 524 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on order under section 148A(d)

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.

Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
466 ITR 474 · 2024 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Reassessment notices under Section 148A, issued in the context of faceless assessment proceedings, must be issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer and not by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO
165 Taxmann.com 581 · 2024 · High Court
50
citing judgments

The issuance of a notice under section 148A, including the order under section 148A(d), is a mandatory procedural step before reassessment proceedings can be initiated under section 147/148. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the subsequent reassessment proceedings invalid.

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
463 ITR 702 · 2024 · High Court
32
citing judgments

The validity of sanction for issuing orders under section 148A(d) and notices under section 148 must be tested with reference to the amended section 151. If sanction is not granted by an authority specified under section 151(ii), such orders and notices are invalid and liable to be quashed.

Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT
164 Taxmann.com 414 · 2024 · High Court
31
citing judgments

An order passed under Section 148A(d) and subsequent proceedings are void if the Assessing Officer provides insufficient opportunity for the assessee to file a reply before issuing the notice under Section 148A(b).

Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
159 Taxmann.com 178 · 2024 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Where more than three years have expired from the end of a relevant assessment year, the sanctioning authority under section 151(ii) for reassessment proceedings must be the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner. An order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 based on the latter's approval are liable to be quashed.

Core Logistic Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
175 Taxmann.com 453 · 2025 · High Court
26
citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is the specified authority for issuing a notice under Section 148 within three years when the amount involved exceeds fifty lakhs, as per Section 151(i) and Section 149(1). An order under Section 148A(d) requires approval from such a specified authority.

Royal Bitumen (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
164 Taxmann.com 606 · 2024 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Orders passed under section 148A(d) and subsequent reassessment proceedings are vitiated if the Assessing Officer fails to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before issuing the notice.

Judgments citing order under section 148A(d)

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai vs. Devang Ajit Javeri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

ITA 4498/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. Devang Ajit Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on

ITA 4497/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section

Devang Ajit Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Range 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

ITA 3510/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section

Devang Ajit Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Range 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on

ITA 3509/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 438/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: 29.03.2022 After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Pcit, Visakhapatnam 1. In Response, Assessee Submitted Reply Through E-Mail On 24.03.2022 Stating That Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act & Therefore Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148A(A) Of The Act Is Not Warranted. Ld. Ao Did Not Accept The Reply Of The Assessee & Decided That It Is A Fit Case Of Issue Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act For The A.Y. 2018-19 & Thereafter Passed Order Under Section 148A(D) Of The Act On 30.03.2022.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

case of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19 and thereafter passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 30.03.2022. 5. Ld. AO then proceeded to issue notice under section 148 of the Act on 02.04.2022. In response, assessee submitted return ... assessee has not been furnished with the copy of the approval of the specified authority along with the order under section 148A(d). 4. The CIT(Appeals), National FacelessAssessment Centre is not justified in denying the claim for deduction of Rs. 49,53,669 under section80P of the Income

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 437/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers 5-28/1, Pandalapaka Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Biccavole Mandal – 533345 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap2382G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

case of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19 and thereafter passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 30.03.2022. 5. Ld. AO then proceeded to issue notice under section 148 of the Act on 02.04.2022. In response, assessee submitted return ... assessee has not been furnished with the copy of the approval of the specified authority along with the order under section 148A(d). 4. The CIT(Appeals), National FacelessAssessment Centre is not justified in denying the claim for deduction of Rs. 49,53,669 under section80P of the Income

JCIT (in-Situ), Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. Tezas Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, both, the appeal of revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1505/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 14ASection 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law held the order under section 148A(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24th July, 2022 and all subsequent proceedings by not considering the notice as extended to re-assessment

Leman Diversified Fund, Mumbai vs. Asssistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2732/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68

Line SC 543] the notice was converted as notice issued under section 148A of the Act. Subsequently, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 28.07.2022 and a notice under section 148 was issued on the same date. The AO passed the draft assessment order

Leman Diversified Fund, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation) Circle 3(1)(2), Mumabi

ITA 2710/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68

Line SC 543] the notice was converted as notice issued under section 148A of the Act. Subsequently, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 28.07.2022 and a notice under section 148 was issued on the same date. The AO passed the draft assessment order

Integrated Core Strategies (Asia) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2608/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68Section 90

Line SC 543] the notice was converted as notice issued under section 148A of the Act. Subsequently, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 28.07.2022 and a notice under section 148 was issued on the same date. The AO passed the draft assessment order ... case of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the said notice was deemed as notice issued under section 148A(b). The AO after passing the order under section 148A(d) issued the notice under section 148 dated 28.07.2022. The contention of the assessee is that the said notice is barred by limitation

Davos International Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta / Shri DhavalFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 68

under section 148A(d) of the Act. The AO issued notice under section 148 dated 04.04.2022. On perusal of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and 148 (page 42 to 46 and 47 of PB) we notice that the impugned notices are issued after obtaining the prior ... April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has ("PCIT

Ratika Kumbhat, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 1017/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

sold 13 plots in cash and sales consideration received by it remained unexplained and supplied documents to assessee - He thereafter passed an order under section 148A(d) stating that amount of sales consideration received in cash required to be reassessed - Whether stand taken by assessee that it had no knowledge ... merits of information available with Assessing Officer and defence set up by assessee is not contemplated at stage of passing an order under section 148A(d), writ petition was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of revenue] [2024] 166 taxmann.com 253 (Gujarat) Deloitte Haskins and Sells

Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 48(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under section

Madurai Tuticorin Expressways Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

ITA 1143/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

notices under section 148 of the Act were issued by the local jurisdictional officer and not in the prescribed faceless manner. The order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notices under section 148 of the Act are issued on 29-4-2022, i.e., after the "Faceless Jurisdiction

Irene Pereira, Udupi vs. ITO Ward- 1&Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 2273/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri. Ravindra Poojary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 147Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 250Section 69

present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 62 pages enclosing therein copies of notices, Order under section 148A(d) of the Act, assessee’s submission filed before the NFAC, bank statements, Details of payment made to Plama Developers, property purchase agreement along with

Cyient Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 913/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.913/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Ankit Jain Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Agwpa4459K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)Section 292CSection 69

148A(d) of the Act. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under section 148 as well as the order under section 148A(d) of the Act were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), which is contrary ... Ankit Jain Hyderabad faceless reassessment introduced by the CBDT. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 30.03.2022 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the same date. He demonstrated that both documents clearly bear the name

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 New Delhi, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, notice under section 148 of the Act and the consequent reassessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, have been issued ... days, the AO had, by virtue of the fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, seven days to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act (which was necessarily required to accompany a notice under Section 148 of the Act). The said period expired

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, notice under section 148 of the Act and the consequent reassessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, have been issued ... days, the AO had, by virtue of the fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, seven days to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act (which was necessarily required to accompany a notice under Section 148 of the Act). The said period expired

ACIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Orbit Financial Capital, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5812/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147

evident that the impugned reassessment action for AY 2015-16 would not sustain. 4.The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 23 July 2022 and consequential notice referable to Section 148 of even date are hereby quashed and set aside

Ashok Amratlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 4286/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2015-16 - A.Y. 2016-17 - A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151A

30/05/2022, providing the assessee an opportunity to comply under the updated procedural framework of Section 148A of the Act.Subsequently, an order under Section 148A(d) was passed, and a notice under the revised provisions of Section 148 was issued on 30/06/2022. Upon completing the assessment, the Ld. AO made ... under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO issued fresh notices under Section 148A(b) on 30/05/2022 and passed orders under Section 148A(d) on 30/06/2022, before the expiration of the statutory timeline. The Ld. AR contended that the Ld. AO erroneously extended the time limit