← All Phrases

“Section 34(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 34Section 34(1)(b)25 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 34(1)(b) is CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. (311 ITR 253), cited in 29 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 34(1)(b)

CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd.
311 ITR 253 · 2009 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Expenses incurred prior to business commencement but after business setup are deductible as revenue expenses, as the setting up and commencement dates of a business are not necessarily the same.

309)(Kar) (b) Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. ACIT
28 Taxmann.com 280 · 2012 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Expenditure approved by the DSIR in Form 3CL alone qualifies for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). The DSIR's decision on the correctness of expenditure under this section is final.

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT
38 DTR 282 · 2010 · Reported
26
citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not applicable to insurance businesses governed by specific provisions of Section 44 and Schedule 1. Profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable, especially after the deletion of sub-rule (b) of Rule 5 of the First Schedule.

B.K Gooyee v. CIT
62 ITR 109 · 1966 · High Court
26
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, that is not signed by the Income Tax Officer is invalid and considered no notice at all, as the signature is an essential and integral part of the notice.

CWT v. Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd.
61 ITR 461 · 1966 · Supreme Court
13
citing judgments

Reassessment action under Section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act (now Section 147(b) of the 1961 Act) requires "information" beyond a mere change of opinion on the same facts or discovery of a mistake of law; an errorless, legally correct order cannot be reopened without new information.

CIT v. Sir Mohammad Yusuf Ismail
12 ITR 8 · 1944 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Reassessment is not permissible based solely on a change of opinion on the same facts, discovery of a mistake of law, or without new information.

Johri Lal (HUF) v. CIT
88 ITR 439 · 1973 · Supreme Court
12
citing judgments

The Income-tax Officer must form a belief that income has escaped assessment, record reasons for this belief, and obtain necessary sanctions before reopening a concluded assessment. Reopening based on an incorrect section of the Act or without proper justification is invalid.

Judgments citing Section 34(1)(b)

Purnagiri Rice Mills, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/LKW/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.251/Lkw/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, V. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. Pan:Aahfp6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 26 11 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

subsequent to the date he passed the original assessment orders. This court has repeatedly ruled that the information referred to in Section 34(1)(b) must be that the Income-tax Officer receives after he makes the original order of assessment. It must come to his knowledge subsequent ... That being so, the Tribunal, in our opinion was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was incompetent to initiate proceedings under Section 34(1)(b). The High Court has given no reason to come to the conclusion that there was any subsequent information on the basis which

Santoshi Arora, Bemetara vs. Assessing Officer 1(3), Bhilai

ITA 312/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 312/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

under section 3 of the Indian Income –tax Act fell within the ambit of section 34(1)(a) of the Act or under section 34(1)(b) of the Act?”, has held as under: In the instant case, as seen earlier, the Income-tax Officer did not choose to proceed ... those requirements had been fulfilled. Possibly they could not have been fulfilled because the Income-tax Officer- proceeded only on the basis of section 34(1)(b) and not on the basis of section 34(1)(a). He himself had declined to proceed on the basis of section 34(1

Akshay Kumar Rungta, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), International Taxation

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

No.66/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 31 'oversight, inadvertence or mistake' of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther than the statute warrants ... have pointed out earlier that Kalyanji Maviji's case [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) outlines four situations in which action under section 34(1)(b) can be validly initiated. The Indian Eastern Newspaper Society's case 2 Taxman 197/119 ITR 996 (SC) has only indicated that proposition (2) outlined

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra

ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1426/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1425/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Cir. 8(1) vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther

Sapna Agarwal, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Cir. 1, Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 1468/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther

Sapna Agarwal, Siliguri vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Siliguri

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

ITA 1467/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 250/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

same. ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. The following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant ... original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which form part of the original assessment, section 34(1)(b) would have no application.” (equivalent to sec. 147 of the Act) (emphasis supplied) 2. ITO vs Lakshmani Mewal

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 191/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

same. ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. The following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant ... original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which form part of the original assessment, section 34(1)(b) would have no application.” (equivalent to sec. 147 of the Act) (emphasis supplied) 2. ITO vs Lakshmani Mewal

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 190/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

same. ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. The following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant ... original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which form part of the original assessment, section 34(1)(b) would have no application.” (equivalent to sec. 147 of the Act) (emphasis supplied) 2. ITO vs Lakshmani Mewal

M/S. Steecon Infrastructure, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Income-tax officer, he had reason to believe that certain income of the firm had escaped assessment and he issued notice under section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which was served on 03/12/1956. This notice was issued in the name of the firm M/s Devidayal & Sons ... Assessing Officer, but before the Tribunal the assessee raised a fresh ground that proceeding initiated by the Income-tax officer under section 34(1)(b) of Income tax, Act 1922 was bad in law. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and allowed the appeal. The Hon’ble High

Agroh Infrastructure Developers P Ltd, Mhow vs. Pr CIT Central Circle Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 95/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

section 22, the previous underassessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34(1)(b), the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

ITA 990/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harishankar Lal, DR
Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

section 22, the previous underassessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34(1)(b), the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 92C

section 22, the previous underassessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34(1)(b), the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped

Hindustan Construction Company, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-6, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 969/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)

section 22, the previous underassessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34(1)(b), the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped