Section 149(1) — 891 judgments | BharatTax

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN vs. KRSKA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4666/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

available /left to issue notice u/s 148 AS TOLA limit 2 days Extended time to be given as per fourth Proviso to section 149(1) 7 days Time limit to issue notice u/s 148 as per section 149(as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and as per Rajeev Bansal

SHAILESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3641/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Amitabh Shuklashailesh Kumar Vs Acit W-82/1, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Central Circle-27 Farms, New Delhi Jhandewalan, New Delhi Pan: Afppk1645B (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. P. Mall, Adv Respondent By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, (‘Ld. Cit (A)’ For Short), New Delhi Dated 28/03/2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Income Of Rs. 18,18,380/-. An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 147 Of The Act On 30/05/2023 By Computing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 72,84,905/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 18,18,380/-. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 30/05/2023, Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 28/03/2025, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 3(1)

notices issued under the old regime for Assessment Year 2015-16, since the limitation period of three or six years, as prescribed under section 149(1) of the Act, did not fall within the period from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021, to which TOLA applies. 9. Further in the judgment ... where the Court held that section 3(1) of TOLA cannot operate to extend the limitation period beyond what is prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the un-amended Act, as it only applies where the original limitation expired between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021. For Assessment Year

SARIT GUPTA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(6), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6662/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the NFAC who vide order dated 28-08-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being, aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 3

applies to the entire Income –tax Act, including sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to section 149(1) (b) is read with Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 then all the notices issued between April 1

BMR OVERSEAS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2), C.R. BUILDING DELHI 110002, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6646/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bmr Overseas Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(2), Zb-33/487, Plot No. 4 & 5, C.R. Building, Dilshad Garde New Delhi Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 095 [Pan No. Aafcb8509D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 157ASection 68

u/s.151 of the new regime for the notices issued in terms of Ashish Agrawal (supra) after 01.04.2021. Reference by ld. Sr. DR to Section 149(1)(a) deals with time limit for issuing notice u/s.148. Contention of the ld. Sr. DR that there is no hierarchical escalation for obtaining prior

SHIV EXTRUSION,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 250

follows: - 1. 1. Jurisdictional Defects (Limitation and Threshold Failure) 1. Invalid Assumption of Jurisdiction due to Retrospective Failure of Monetary Tinreshold (Section 149(1)(b)): The NFAC erred in sustaining the reassessment initiated under the extended period of limitation prescribed by Section 149(1)(b) despite the final assessed income ... threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs or more. -The AD relied on the entire alleged turnover of Rs. 1,17,14,220/- to invoke Section 149(1)(b). The NFAC itself conceded the settled legal position that only the profit embedded in such sales is taxable, not the entire turnover. Since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1324/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1323/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1322/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue\nare partly allowed

ITA 1321/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: \nShri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: \nShri Tarun Chanana, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact\nthat there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course\nof search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b)\nof the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the\ncourse of search which constitutes income and which is represented

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1320/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1319/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1318/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1317/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

MALHOTRA CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRA CIRCLE - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1108/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

MALHOTRA CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1107/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

MALHOTRA CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1102/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

MALHOTRA CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1097/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

provisions of section 282A(1) of the Act. e) The assessment is wrongly re-opened on the basis of time limit mentioned in Section 149(1)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B r.w.s

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

provisions of section 282A(1) of the Act. e) The assessment is wrongly re-opened on the basis of time limit mentioned in Section 149(1)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B r.w.s

SUNIL SURESH RANE,DOMBIVLI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsunil Suresh Rane Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 301 Amrita, Apts, Rajaji Kautilya Bhawan C41- Path Lane 43, Avenue 3, Near No.4 Dombivli Videsh Bhavan, G Block Mumbai - 421201 Bkc, Gilban Area, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Abtpr2589P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Aakash Parekh (Virtually Present) Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. Ground No. 1: Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

income is only Rs 5,36,290, which is admittedly below the monetary threshold of Rs 50,00,000 as prescribed under section 149(1)(b); therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and bad in law and the consequential reassessment deserves to be quashed. 5.4. On the facts

“Section 149(1)”

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN vs. KRSKA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

SHAILESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

SARIT GUPTA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(6), NEW DELHI

BMR OVERSEAS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2), C.R. BUILDING DELHI 110002, DELHI

SHIV EXTRUSION,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

MALHOTRA CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRA CIRCLE - 7, NEW DELHI

MALHOTRA CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -7, NEW DELHI

MALHOTRA CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -7, NEW DELHI

MALHOTRA CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, NEW DELHI

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

SUNIL SURESH RANE,DOMBIVLI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI