← 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

Jalgaon Jilha Sahakari Cottan Marketing Fedration, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jalgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.616/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Jalgaon Jilha Sahakari Ito, Ward 1(4), Cotton Marketing Jalgaon Fedration Limited, 135/1, Vs. Jilha Peth, Near S.B.I., Jalgaon-425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aadfj8195Q अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Deepa Khare Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 24-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.01.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 10.02.2021. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iv) Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Non- Compliance Was Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Appellant. The Appellant Prays That Opportunity May Kindly Be Provided To Explain Its Case.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

Even the assessment order has been framed on 10.02.2021. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance 3 for extension of limitation, (2022) 441 ITR 722 dated 10.01.2022 suo moto extended the limitation period falling between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 on account of the difficulties faced by the citizens

Mahavir Trading Company, Parwanoo vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 435 /Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S Mahavir Trading Company Acit-Circle Parwanoo बनाम/ Booth No. 18 Sector-1 Himachal Pardesh 173220 Vs. Parwanoo (Hp) 173220 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefm-8949-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of : 04-08-2025 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla [Cit(A)] Dated 30-01-2020 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 28-12-2007. This Is Second Round Of Appeal. In The First Round, The Assessment Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 26-05-2008. However, The Matter Was Remanded Back By Tribunal Vide Ita No.795/Chd/2009

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld.Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

falls within lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 Pandemic and also considering the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (127 Taxmann.com 72), the delay is condoned and we proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. Proceedings before lower authorities 2.1 The assessee