“Section 153(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 153Section 153(2)143 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 153(2) is 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO (296 ITR 90), cited in 171 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 153(2)

153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO

296 ITR 90 · 2008 · High Court

171

citing judgments

A live link of third-party information can form the basis for reopening an assessment under Section 148, provided it contains material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, which can be satisfied by such information even if it pertains to other assessees or relates to accommodation entries.

Sodex SVC India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) 2(2)

92 Taxmann.com 260 · 2018 · ITAT

citing judgments

A statutory provision is not construed to have retrospective operation unless such a construction is explicitly stated in the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication.

ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd.

20 Taxmann.com 587 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Under Section 263, the PCIT/CIT cannot set aside an assessment order for mere 'insufficiency of enquiry' or by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The PCIT/CIT must conduct necessary inquiries and themselves establish how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue before passing a revision order.

Rajinder Nath v. CIT

120 ITR 14 · 1979 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A 'direction' issued by an appellate or revisional authority under Sections 150(1) or 153(3) of the Income-tax Act must be a specific, clear, and mandatory positive command requiring action, and not merely an observation or finding, to be legally effective.

PCIT, Central-3 v. Allied Perfumers (P.) Ltd.

124 Taxmann.com 358 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

The case is cited for various issues including the definition of capital assets, reassessment procedures under sections 153A and 153C, and the effect of clarificatory amendments.

Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement

155 ITR 166 · 1985 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The phrase "so far as may be" in a statutory provision indicates that the referred procedures, such as those for conducting searches, are to be generally followed to the extent possible, meaning they are not mandatory in every minute detail but applied practically.

CIT v. Ganga Properties Ltd.

199 ITR 94 · 1993 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by a company for the purpose of its business, including expenses to fulfill statutory legal obligations or those related to an erstwhile business post-transfer, is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act.

Pr. CIT v. Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd.

409 ITR 132 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time or after the time for completing reassessment under Section 153(2) has expired renders the entire assessment proceedings invalid. Section 292BB does not waive the requirement for such statutorily mandated notices.

Judgments citing Section 153(2)

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 587/CHNY/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.587/Chny/2017 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A HIFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 153(2)Section 201(1)Section 40

case and in law, the impugned assessment order is bad in law since it has been passed after the limitation period prescribed under section 153(2) of the Act." 2. Ground No. 2 Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax at source

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 3(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed and that of the

ITA 1970/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Neha Vikam, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

reviving stale/ old matters. 9 In fact, to ensure that reopening notices are disposed of, expeditiously the parliament itself has provided in Section 153(2) of the Act a period of limitation within which the Assessing Officer must pass an order on the notice of reopening i.e. within one year

The Shipping Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed and that of the

ITA 1752/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Neha Vikam, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata vs. Hi Tech Systems and Services Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1318/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153Section 80H

therewith before the department. The assessee strongly submitted before the AO that the assessment being barred by limitation in terms of Provisions of Section 153(2) of the Act read with proviso. However, the ld. AO rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the assessment was not barred ... which is available at page no. 62 of the Paper Book. The ld. AR further submitted that in terms of provisions of Section 153(2) of the Act as was applicable at the relevant point of time, no assessment shall be framed u/s 147 of the Act after expiry

P. Ravikumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

ITA 2492/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2492/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-2012) P. Ravikumar, D.No.H2/4,Mullai Nagar, Namakkal 637 001. [Pan: Atwpr 0272Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Namakkal. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, C.A., Ms. T.M. Suganthamala, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 08.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Eight (8) Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Counsel For The Assessee Has Pressed A Ground Of Limitation Which Is As Under: "2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Lower Authorities Are Not Justified In Not Accepting The Position That The Assessment Framed Is Barred By Limitation In Terms Of Section 153(2) Of The Income Tax Act, In As Much As For The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 24.03.2018 The Assessment Should Have Been Completed On Or Before 31.12.2018 But The Assessment Was Completed By Order Dated 29.11.2019, Which Order Is Barred By Limitation'. 2

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 153(2)

case the lower authorities are not justified in not accepting the position that the assessment framed is barred by limitation in terms of section 153(2) of the Income tax act, in as much as for the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 24.03.2018 the assessment should have ... issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 24.03.2018 was barred by limitation. As per the submission of the appellant referring to Section 153(2) amended by Finance Act 2010 since the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 24.3.2018, hence the assessment order should have been passed within nine

DCIT, Central Circle- 4(1), Mumbai vs. Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-

ITA 1639/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35A

reviving stale/ old matters. 9. In fact, to ensure that reopening notices are disposed of, expeditiously the parliament itself has provided in Section 153(2) of the Act a period of limitation within which the Assessing Officer must pass an order on the notice of reopening i.e. within one year ... reviving stale/ old matters. 9. In fact, to ensure that re-opening notices are disposed of, expeditiously the parliament itself has provided in Section 153(2) of the Act a period of limitation within which the Assessing Officer must pass an order on the notice of re- opening within

Uti Asset Management Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2009-10 Uti Asset Management Deputy Commissioner Of Income Company Limited, Tax , Uti Tower, „Gn‟ Block, Vs. Circle 10(1), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai. Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan : Aaacu6260F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Ninad Patade For Revenue : Shri Paresh Deshpande,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-12-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reviving stale/ old matters. 9 In fact, to ensure that re-opening notices are disposed of, expeditiously the parliament itself has provided in Section 153(2) of the Act a period of limitation within which the Assessing Officer must pass an order on the notice of re-opening i.e. within

Smt. Nithya Govindarajan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(3), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 1687/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms.L.Sweety, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153(1)Section 2

issued on 20.03.2018 electronically, which means it can be presumed to have been served upon the assessee on the same day. Therefore, section 153(2) of the Act prescribes the time limit to pass the assessment/re-assessment order after re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. As per sub- section

Abbas Ali Akhil, Usa vs. ACIT-Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 93/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

whre as the time limit for completion of assessment expires on 31.03.2023 as per the provisions of section 153(2) of IT Act. Therefore, the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) is passed beyond the time limits provided u/s 153(2) of the IT Act and therefore, the same ... been completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 08-01-2024. As per the provisions of Section 153(2) of the Act, re-assessment shall be completed within one year from the end of the financial year in which notice under Section

Abbas Ali Akhil, Usa vs. ACIT-Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 92/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

Mir Ibrahim Ali, Usa vs. ACIT, Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 91/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

Mir Ibrahim Ali, Usa vs. ACIT, Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 69/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

Hcl Technologies Mexico S De Rl De Cv, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2303/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 153(2)

erred on facts and in law in passing final assessment order without appreciating that the reassessment proceedings are time barred in terms of section 153(2) of the Act inasmuch as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Ashish Agarwal

Hcl Technologies Mexico S De Rl De Cv, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2302/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 153(2)

Hcl Technologies Mexico S De Rl De Cv, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2301/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 153(2)

Hcl Technologies Norway As, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2300/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

Hcl Australia Services Pty Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2299/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

Hcl Singapore Pte. Ltd (Successor to Axon Solutions Singapore Pte Limited), Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2298/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

Asra Ahmed, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 157/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 48Section 56

find force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee for the simple reason that, as per section 153(2), the time limit for completion of assessment or re-assessment shall be 12 months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was served ... 153(4) of the Act, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer ought to have completed the assessment as per the provisions of section 153(2) of the Act which is one year from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was served. In the present

Syed Ahmed Zeeshanuddin, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 48Section 56