← All Phrases

“Section 149(1)(9)”

Section References (mined)Section 149Section 149(1)(9)4 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 149(1)(9) is Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (57 ITR 532), cited in 142 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 149(1)(9)

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.

18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. ADIT (International Taxation)
44 Taxmann.com 1 · 2014 · ITAT
85
citing judgments

The Mumbai Tribunal has held that the term 'process' in relation to royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act is not defined and must be considered within the contemplation of the term, potentially impacting its application under DTAAs. This decision distinguished itself from the facts of other cases, including those involving broadcasting and advertising airtime.

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.

01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC)
213 ITR 805 · 1995 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Sums credited in the books of an assessee can be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act if the explanation offered regarding their nature and source is not satisfactory.

Judgments citing Section 149(1)(9)

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1038/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

conclusion that escapement is ₹21,78,610/- which is apparently below ₹50 lacs and therefore, barred by limitation in terms of provisions of section 149(1)(9) of the Act. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148B and all other consequential proceedings are bad in law. In defence of his arguments

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1037/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

conclusion that escapement is ₹21,78,610/- which is apparently below ₹50 lacs and therefore, barred by limitation in terms of provisions of section 149(1)(9) of the Act. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148B and all other consequential proceedings are bad in law. In defence of his arguments

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1036/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

conclusion that escapement is ₹21,78,610/- which is apparently below ₹50 lacs and therefore, barred by limitation in terms of provisions of section 149(1)(9) of the Act. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148B and all other consequential proceedings are bad in law. In defence of his arguments

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(2) (Now DCIT, Cent.Cir. 4(2)), Kolkata

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

ITA 1035/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

conclusion that escapement is ₹21,78,610/- which is apparently below ₹50 lacs and therefore, barred by limitation in terms of provisions of section 149(1)(9) of the Act. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148B and all other consequential proceedings are bad in law. In defence of his arguments