← All Phrases

“Section 149(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 149Section 149(1)(c)90 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 149(1)(c) is CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. (149 ITR 751), cited in 248 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 149(1)(c)

CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd.
149 ITR 751 · 1984 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Minor defects or mistakes in a penalty notice issued under Section 274 do not invalidate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) if the assessee suffers no prejudice and is aware of the charge. However, significant vagueness or ambiguity that demonstrates non-application of mind or causes prejudice can still render the notice invalid.

K.P.Madhusudhanan v. CIT
251 ITR 99 · 2001 · Supreme Court
199
citing judgments

Voluntary disclosures or explanations offered by an assessee do not automatically absolve them from penalty under section 271(1)(c) if the explanation is not substantiated by credible evidence.

535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices v. UOI
385 ITR 497 · 2016 · High Court
163
citing judgments

Orders passed under section 201(1) are barred by limitation if the prescribed period of limitation under section 201(3) had expired before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2014 came into force. The amended section 201(3) does not apply retrospectively.

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT
57 ITR 532 · 1965 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.
104 ITD 149 · 2007 · ITAT
118
citing judgments

A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.

Katira Constructions Limited v. Union of India and Others
352 ITR 513 · 2013 · High Court
70
citing judgments

The Gujarat High Court holds that the explanation to Section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, regarding works contracts for infrastructure facilities, is clarificatory and explanatory in nature, not an amendment with retrospective effect. Its vires are upheld as it does not levy tax retrospectively.

Banarsi Debi v. ITO
53 ITR 100 · 1964 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

For income-tax notices, particularly under Section 34(1) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Sections 147/148 of the 1961 Act), there is no real distinction between the 'issue' and 'service' of a notice. The word 'issued' must be given a wider meaning, effectively encompassing 'served'.

J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar
94 ITR 616 · 1974 · High Court
58
citing judgments

An assessee found to be the owner of bullion, etc., must explain its source. The Income Tax Officer must find the assessee to be the owner, not merely in possession.

Judgments citing Section 149(1)(c)

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1901/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee was without considering the retrospective application of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT ... beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement of any income

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1900/AHD/2019[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee was without considering the retrospective application of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT ... beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement of any income

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1899/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee was without considering the retrospective application of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT ... beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement of any income

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1898/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee was without considering the retrospective application of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT ... beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement of any income

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1897/AHD/2019[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee was without considering the retrospective application of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT ... beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement of any income

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1896/AHD/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee was without considering the retrospective application of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT ... beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement of any income

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1895/AHD/2019[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee was without considering the retrospective application of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT ... beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement of any income

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1894/AHD/2019[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee was without considering the retrospective application of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT ... beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement of any income

DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3600/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment amounts to one lakh rupees or more for that year. 1.4 As per the unamended section 149(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 16 years from the end of the relevant AY if income

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3596/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment amounts to one lakh rupees or more for that year. 1.4 As per the unamended section 149(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 16 years from the end of the relevant AY if income

Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3476/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment amounts to one lakh rupees or more for that year. 1.4 As per the unamended section 149(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 16 years from the end of the relevant AY if income

Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3475/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment amounts to one lakh rupees or more for that year. 1.4 As per the unamended section 149(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 16 years from the end of the relevant AY if income

Devinder Singh Sahney, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1585/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwal, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, Fenil Bhatt &For Respondent: S/Shri Miland Chavan & Anil Sant, Sr. DRs
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

w.e.f. 1/07/2012, he submitted that for invoking jurisdiction u/s. 148 of 5 the Act, the Revenue has placed reliance on the provisions of section 149(1)(c) of the Act. Clause (c) of section 149(1) provides that where more than four years but not more than 16 years have ... There is no allegation in reasons for reopening in the present casethat income from foreign assets has escaped assessment. Therefore, the provisions of section 149(1)(c) are not attracted, hence, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is time barred. The ld. Counsel asserted that, what is taxable

Govindbhai L. Kakadia, Mumbai vs. JCIT-19(2), Mumbai

ITA 310/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2006-07
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

Accordingly, in the case of the 4 Appellant it would be deemed that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Further, as per Section 149(1)(c) of the Act the Assessing Officer had time till the lapse of 16 years from the end of the Assessment Year

Amrita Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax) Range 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6096/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2007-08
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

resident, therefore, in terms of fourth proviso to Section 139(1), she is not required to disclose foreign asset and therefore, provision of Section 149(1)(c) extending the period of 16 years will also not apply. The main reasons given by the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “However ... accrue and arise in India under section 9 of IT.Act, 1961 also and which was not done by her and hence provisions of section 149(1)(c) of I.T.Act, 1961 squarely apply to assessee's case. The income accruing and arising from assets located in HSBC Private Bank Geneva

Amrita Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax) Range 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6095/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2006-07
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

resident, therefore, in terms of fourth proviso to Section 139(1), she is not required to disclose foreign asset and therefore, provision of Section 149(1)(c) extending the period of 16 years will also not apply. The main reasons given by the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “However ... accrue and arise in India under section 9 of IT.Act, 1961 also and which was not done by her and hence provisions of section 149(1)(c) of I.T.Act, 1961 squarely apply to assessee's case. The income accruing and arising from assets located in HSBC Private Bank Geneva

The ACIT-Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Rajkot

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 130/RJT/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Income-Tax, 7Th Floor, Mansrovar Central Circle-2, Apartment, Royal Park, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Agqpm 6495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2020 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(c)Section 149(3)Section 250(6)

relevant assessment year was barred by limitation without appreciating that the Explanation below sec.149(3), introduced w.e.f. 1.4.2012, clearly gave retrospective operation to section 149(1)(c) and therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing notice u/s 148 for A.Y.2004-05. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances ... Revenue reopened the case as per the limitation prescribed for issuing notice under Section 148, as per the provision of Section 149(1)(c)of the Act, which prescribed limit for reopening cases up to 16 years till the impugned assessment year, where the income escaped pertained to assets located

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Deval D Thakkar [Now Known As Smt Deval E Anthony], Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are 11

ITA 968/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 968/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 974/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Smt. Deval D. Thakkar (Now Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Known As Smt. Deval E Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Anthony) Point, Mumbai-400021. 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt8999F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Dilip Thakkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Dated 26.11.2019 For A.Y.1999-2000 & For Ay. 2004-05. 2. Both The Parties Agree That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, We Take The Appeal Of The Assessee For Ay. 1999-2000 As The Lead Case & The Decision Of Which Will Be Followed For Ay. 2004-05. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue For Ay. 1999-2000 Is As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

Deval D. Thakkar 6. Based on the aforesaid reason the AO reopened the assessment and for doing so he took the aid of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act which reads as under:- “Time Limit for notice 149 [(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued ... Thakkar “6.4 The submissions of the Ld. counsel have been carefully considered. It is the assessee’s contention that the provisions of section 149(1)(c) are not applicable to this case as she does not have any financial interest in any foreign entity. As the reopening has been done

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

resident since last about 15 years to have a bank account outside India is not vital or important information. 12. Under Section 149(1)(c), and for the purpose of reassessment asset located outside is relevant if and only if there is income in relation to such asset located outside ... Bombay High court in Vodafone Services India P Ltd vs Union of India 368 ITR 1 (Bom). 14. Provisions of Section 149(1)(c) and proviso 2 to Sec 147 make it clear that what is intended to be reassessed is only income in relation to any asset (including financial

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

resident since last about 15 years to have a bank account outside India is not vital or important information. 12. Under Section 149(1)(c), and for the purpose of reassessment asset located outside is relevant if and only if there is income in relation to such asset located outside ... Bombay High court in Vodafone Services India P Ltd vs Union of India 368 ITR 1 (Bom). 14. Provisions of Section 149(1)(c) and proviso 2 to Sec 147 make it clear that what is intended to be reassessed is only income in relation to any asset (including financial