“Section 148(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 148Section 148(1)147 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 148(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 148(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla

380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court

3,235

citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court

2,943

citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court

1,967

citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

Judgments citing Section 148(1)

The Kadavalur Service Cooperative Bank Limited No3821, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Guruvayur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 639/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Sri.Dileep Balachandran, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 250(6)Section 28Section 56Section 57Section 80A(5)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

Unnikrishnan. K, Kunnampally vs. The ITO Ward 2, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms, and his stay petition dismissed

ITA 955/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Dr. Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member

Kandathil Jewellers, Kerala vs. DCIT, Circle Ingtl. Txan, Kerala

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 874/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Kandathil Jewellers, Kerala vs. DCIT, Circle Ingtl. Txan, Kerala

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 873/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Kandathil Jewellers, Kerala vs. DCIT International Taxation Circle, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 872/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

H S Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reasons recorded under Section 148(2) towards escapement of I.T.As. No.148 & 149/Del/2021 6 income giving cause for issuance of notice under Section 148(1) is the foundation for determination of jurisdiction issue. Accordingly, the reasons so recorded by the AO are reproduced hereunder: “The assessee has filed its return

H S Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 148/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ITO Ward-32(2), New Delhi vs. Mahavir Singh Dagar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2756/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: None

Section 147Section 148

mandatorily complied with. They are not mere procedural requirements. (ii) For the AO to exercise jurisdiction to reopen an assessment, notice under Section 148 (1) has to be mandatorily issued to the Assessee. Further the AO cannot complete the reassessment without service of the notice so issued upon the Assessee ... under Section 148 of the Act. (vi) Reassessment proceedings finalized by an AO without effecting proper service of notice on the Assessee under Section 148(1) of the Act are invalid and liable to be quashed. (vi) Section 292 BB is prospective. In any event the Assessee in the present

M/S Ayyanad Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ITO, Non Corp Ward 1(5), Kochi

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

ITA 279/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasayyanad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income Tax Officer No. 2565, Vazhakkala Non-Corporate Ward - 1(5) Thrikkakara P.O. Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682021 Kochi - 682018 [Pan:Aacaa0824B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 80P(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

M/S Creative World Telefilms Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

ITA 1651/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Section 124Section 127Section 129Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

ITA No.1651/Mum/2019 M/s. Creative World Telefilms Ltd 2. In the original grounds of appeal, assessee has raised following grounds:- “1

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Creative Awards & Rewards P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2) (3), Mumbai

ITA 1456/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Creative Awards, Income Tax Officer – 1/B, Dashmesh Colony, 9(2)(3), Four Bunglow Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (W), Room No.601A, Mumbai – 400 058 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacc1801G Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Keshav Bhujle, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawalkumar Chavhan, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148(2)

assessee contended that the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the service of validity of notice under section 148(1) of the Act may be decided first. So I am taking the additional ground first. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the service and validity of the notice

Sreeni Parameswaran, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 186/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreeni Parameswaran Asst. Cit, 7/42 – B5, Mystic Bells Corporate Circle- 2(1) Villa No. 1, Eroor Desom Kochi Nadama Village Vs. Ernakulam 682308 [Pan: Bahps6202C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. K. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Order Dated 20.01.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac), Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of The Addition By Way Of Deemed Dividend U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act For Rs. 62,44,215,Since Confirmed In The First Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 2(22)(e)

186/Coch/2023 (AY 2011-12) Sreeni Parameswaran vs. Asst. CIT from the said company vide return filed on 25.01.2016 on being issued notice under section 148(1) of the Act on 06.08.2014. The sum of Rs.62.44 lakhs owed by him to SHPL as at the year-end, i.e., 31.03.2011, was inferred

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Aruna Garg, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT Circle-1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1622/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

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

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

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

ITAT in the appeal filed by the assessee allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that notice issued under section 148(1) of the said Act was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the subsequent proceedings are invalid. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the High Court. While ... dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, the Court held that when the notice under section 148 (1) of the said Act was issued, ACIT, Range-IV, Lucknow had no jurisdiction over the assessee as the jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred to the Additional CIT, Range-I, Lucknow

M/S. Minestone, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2546/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Minestone Acit-18(2) Room No. 32, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 98, Mumbai -400 020 Sagar Bhavan, Building No.2, Vs. Kantilal M Sharma Marg, Lohar Chawl, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM