← All Phrases

“extension of limitation”

Assessment ProceduresSection 153Section 153561 judgments

The decision most relied on for extension of limitation is Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (2 SCC 107), cited in 451 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on extension of limitation

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Income Tax, (1989) 111 ITR 377 (SC) and Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Limited v. CIT
224 ITR 342 · 1997 · Supreme Court
60
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the expansion, extension, or betterment of an existing business, or for improvisation that is part of the existing business, is allowable as revenue expenditure. Payments made for acquiring technical know-how and exclusive rights for setting up a new business can be capital expenditure.

CIT v. Bajrang Textiles
294 ITR 561 · 2007 · High Court
50
citing judgments

A direction for special audit under Section 142(2A), issued near the expiry of the limitation period primarily to gain an extension of time or with instructions beyond the section's scope, is illegal, rendering the subsequent assessment time-barred.

Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co.
1 SCC 255 · 1969 · Reported
43
citing judgments

When a new statutory provision is substituted for an existing one, the legislative intent is typically that the old provision is deemed deleted and does not remain in force unless there is a clear intention to keep it alive.

Ganesh Dass Khanna v. Income Tax Officer
156 Taxmann.com 417 · 2023 · High Court
34
citing judgments

The time limits for reopening assessments under the new regime are reduced to three years, with an extension to ten years only for serious tax evasion cases involving concealment of Rs. 50 lakhs or more.

Godrej Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
160 Taxmann.com 13 · 2024 · High Court
21
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 for AY 2014-15 is invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, especially when the extended period of 6 years under section 149 may not apply.

Delhi in ACIT v. Soul Space
117 Taxmann.com 395 · 2020 · High Court
18
citing judgments

An order for special audit under Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act must be passed within the prescribed time, including any extensions. An assessment order based on a special audit report submitted beyond the permissible period is void.

08 (Del) 4. CIT vs. S.K. Katyal, (2009) 308 ITR 168 (Del) 5. Golderest Finance (India) Ltd. v. DCIT
334 ITR 240 · 2011 · High Court
15
citing judgments

The Revenue Authorities cannot make a reference for assessment years if no information could have been provided for those years, and any extension of limitation based on such an invalid reference is impermissible.

Judgments citing extension of limitation

Jivan Jyot Trust, Umreth vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 697/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.697/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Jivan Jyot Trust The Ito बनाम/ 6, Yamuna Park Society Ward-1 V/S. C/O. Dr Mb Bhagat, Anand – 388 001 Ode Bazar Umreth – 388 220 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaaj 1506 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/112025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Addl/Jcit(A) Mysore, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Is A Public Charitable Trust & Is Registered U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) & Is Also Approved U/S.80G (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income (Itr) For Ay 2020-21 Jivan Jyot Trust Vs. Ito Asst.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 80G

income. 4. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307/441 ITR (SC)/ suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020’, whereby, the period of limitation expired during the period between 15/03/2020

Bhushan Vasant Parelkar, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6322/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 50C

below: “30. With respect to applicability of the fifth proviso and the sixth proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for extension of limitation for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act, fifth and sixth provisos are only applicable with respect to the period of limitation