Section 148(1) — 147 judgments | BharatTax

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 142/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Yash Dhariwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13. Consequently, and in light of the above, we find ... Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13. Consequently, and in light of the above, we find

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 141/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Yash Dhariwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13. Consequently, and in light of the above, we find ... Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13. Consequently, and in light of the above, we find

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2572/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

prescribes the period of limitation. It categorically prescribes that no notice under section 148 shall be issued after the prescribed limitation has lapsed. Section 148(1) provides for ITA No(s). 2572/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2011-12 Narayan Barter Private Limited. service of notice as a condition precedent to making ... Once a notice is issued within the period of limitations, jurisdiction becomes vested in the ITO to proceed to reassess. The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. The requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

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

Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13. Consequently, and in light of the above, we find ... Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13. Consequently, and in light of the above, we find

SUMITRA DEVI,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD 4(1),GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 2499/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

mentioned that section 148 notice, dated 30.3.2021 was issued and nothing has been mentioned regarding the service of the notice upon the assessee. Section 148(1) clearly reflects that in order to fulfil the jurisdictional requirement for income escaped assessment proceedings u/s.147. It was further submitted that in the present ... served upon the assessee, thus, it is requested to quash the assessment order. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that section 148(1) of the Act mandates only the issuance of notice for assuming jurisdiction to reopen an assessment. The statute consciously uses the expression “The Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER22(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA TRANSPORT AGENCY, MUMBAI

ITA 6612/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed & Shri HiteshFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

SANGEETA SHARMA,GHAZIABAD, UP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5635/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 69

service of notice under Section 148 upon the assessee which the first and foremost condition to be fulfilled under the provisions of Section 148(1) of the Act in the absence of which the entire proceeding is vitiated. 4. Having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee and having

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED MINARPALLY,MINARPALLY VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

ITA 140/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.140/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Primary Agricultural Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit Society Ward 1 Ltd Minarpally, Minarpally Minarpally, Nizamabad Pan:Aabap7760J (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: C.A Akshay Surana राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd Minarpally (“The Assessee"), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05.11.2024 For The A.Y, 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: C.A Akshay Surana

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

material available on record, it is construed that income chargeable to tax represented in the form of asset within the meaning of section 148(1)(xi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in this case, cash deposit of Rs.60,13,500/- in the bank account which is likely to amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/AGR/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Upadhyay, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR)

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(1)

where the assessee has furnished her/his return of income u/s 139 or in response to a notice issued u/s 142(1) or section 148(1); and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, has been issued by the Assessing Officer or the prescribed Income-tax Authority, as the case

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

{ "clean_text": "I.T.A. No.226/Lkw/2024\n Assessment Year: 2012-13\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nLUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW\nBEFORE

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI vs. VAISHNODEVI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, SILIGURI

In the result, both the appeals of the of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1383/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI vs. VAISHNODEVI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, SILIGURI

In the result, both the appeals of the of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1382/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

relevant point of time provides that AO shall serve the notice issued u/s 148 to the assessee. 15. Since as per section 148(1), it is mandatory that notice u/s 148 should be served on the assessee. As observed above, in the instant case, the AO despite of having information

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

ITA 78/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

ITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “SMC & DB" BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

ITA 64/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

ITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “SMC & DB" BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

RAMA AGRAWAL, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.490/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rama Agrawal 33A, I. E. Bhilai, S.O Industrial Estate, Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8359N

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13. Consequently, and in light of the above, we find

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

period of limitation. It categor- ically prescribes that no notice under section 148 shall be issued after the prescribed limitation has lapsed. Section 148(1) provides for ser-vice of notice as a condition precedent to making the order of assess-ment. Once a notice is issued within the period ... limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Income- tax Officer to proceed to reassess. The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. The requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued. In this case, admit- tedly

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

period of limitation. It categor- ically prescribes that no notice under section 148 shall be issued after the prescribed limitation has lapsed. Section 148(1) provides for ser-vice of notice as a condition precedent to making the order of assess-ment. Once a notice is issued within the period ... limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Income- tax Officer to proceed to reassess. The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. The requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued. In this case, admit- tedly

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

towards possible escapement would not permit to reopen a completed assessment in defiance of statutory requirement of substantial nature. The notice issued under Section 148(1) is thus ultra vires the provision of Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, we see considerable force in the plea of the assessee

HARJEET SINGH CHHABRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIPUR (ERST. ITO-1(3), RAIPUR), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Harjeet Singh Chhabra H. No.84, Las Vista, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adkpc0408P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 4

Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13. Consequently, and in light of the above, we find

“Section 148(1)”

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

SUMITRA DEVI,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD 4(1),GURGAON, GURGAON

INCOME TAX OFFICER22(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA TRANSPORT AGENCY, MUMBAI

SANGEETA SHARMA,GHAZIABAD, UP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED MINARPALLY,MINARPALLY VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI vs. VAISHNODEVI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, SILIGURI

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI vs. VAISHNODEVI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, SILIGURI

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

RAMA AGRAWAL, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

HARJEET SINGH CHHABRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIPUR (ERST. ITO-1(3), RAIPUR), RAIPUR