“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

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

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

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)

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

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

ITA 492/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

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

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

ITA 491/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

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 963/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. Shri Dilip J Thakkar Central Circle – 6(4) 12/22B, Acropolis, Room No. 1925, 19Th Malabar Hills, Floor, Air India Bldg, Mumbai – 400006. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt9000H Appellant .. Respondent The Dcit, Vs. Smt Indira D. Thakkar Central Circle – 6(4) 12/22B, Acropolis, Room No. 1925, 19Th Malabar Hills, Floor, Air India Bldg, Mumbai – 400006. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt3389E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Takkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.G.Mehta.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 149(1)

observed at page 18 Para 6.6 of the order and quashed the reopening proceedings are read as under: “6.6 Section 149(1)(c) which extends the period to 16 years where income in relation to any asset located outside India, chargeable to tax has escaped assessment came into effect from ... time section 149(1)(c) was introduced i.e. 01.07.2012, the time limit for issue of notice u/s.148 as per the law prevailing on that day has expired. Following the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahmdatt(supra), the assessment cannot

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 966/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 1999-2000

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 149(1)(c)

assessment year which is being sought to be reopened, as is said to be the unambiguous position of law under section 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act), the assessee‟s contention, which has found favour with the learned Commissioner (Appeals ... that such an extended time limit of sixteen years, as against the limit of six years prevailing as on 1st July 2012 when section 149(1)(c) came into force, will come into play only in respect of the cases which could have been reopened on 1st July 2012 anyway

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Indira D Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 969/MUM/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 1999-2000 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Smt. Indira D. Thakkar, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 12/22B, Acropolis, Malabar Hills, India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 006 Vs. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabpt 3389 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Sunil A. Umap, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Dilip Thakkar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Dilip Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Datt v. ACIT and Others [W.P.(C) 1109/2016] and submitted that provision of section 149(1)(c) are not applicable in the case of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) following findings of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case ... Brahm Datta (supra) quashed the reassessment proceedings observing as under : “6.6 Section 149(1)(c) which extends the period to 16 years where income in relation to any asset located outside India, chargeable to tax has escaped assessment came into effect from 01.07.2012. By the time section 149(1)(c

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Mitali R Lakhanpal, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 973/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(c)

records. Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the reopening as time barred as the second explanation to section 149(1)(c) expressly provided the section to be applicable to any assessment year beginning on or before the first day of April, 2012. He submitted that

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3731/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

assessee at his legal address. This will be pertinent to mention that this case is related to assets located outside India therefore, section 149(1)(c) will be applicable for determining the time limit for reopening this case. Section 149(1)(c) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 149. (1 ... asset located outside India and this is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, provision of section .149(1) (c) will be applicable for determining the time limit for re-opening this case. Therefore, the proceedings u/s 147/148 are not barred by time