← All Phrases

“Section 149(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 149Section 149(1)891 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 149(1) is Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1), cited in 524 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 149(1)

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd.
465 ITR 101 · 2024 · High Court
277
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, the commencement point for calculating the six or ten assessment year block period is the date of issuing the Section 153C notice, or the date of the satisfaction note/handing over of books, as clarified by the first proviso to Section 153C(1).

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.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT
308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court
248
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

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.

1. S. S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co.
53 ITR 231 · 1964 · Supreme Court
158
citing judgments

Income-tax assessment proceedings are administrative in nature, not civil disputes or judicial proceedings between contesting parties. Income-tax authorities act as administrative bodies to estimate income and assess tax, and the proper service of notice within the limitation period is foundational for reassessment jurisdiction.

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.

Judgments citing Section 149(1)

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kundan Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4493/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 68

judgment and order dated 20/02/2024. Otherwise also, in view of the time limit of issuance of notice u/s 148A has been provided in Section 149(1)(b) as existed prior to 01/04/2022 was three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The said provision reads as under

Sri Lakshmi Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd, Udupi vs. ITO Ward - 1 and Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 935/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2016-17 Sri Lakshmi Multipurpose Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd., Ward – 1&Tps, Udupi. Floor-1, Srihari Tower, Kanakadasa Road, Udupi-576 101. Pan – Aakcs 4571 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Poojary, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 .06.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Prakash Chand Yadavinstant Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 22/03/2024 In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2023- 24/1063170077(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Assessee A Cooperative Society, Could Not File Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year. Thereafter, On The Basis Of An Information, Revealing That Assessee Has Deposited An Amount Of Rs.4,24,10,051, Ao Issued Notice U/S 148A To The Assessee. The Ao, Page 2 Of 4 While Framing The Assessment, Observed That The Assessee Is Not Qualified For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act, Relying Upon The Judgment Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Citizen Co-Operative Society Reported In 397 The Ao Framed The Assessment & Made An Addition Of Rs.48,53,282/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 80P(2)(a)

that the income escaped is only 48,53,282/-, which figure is below the threshold limit of Rs 50 lakhs as provided in section 149(1(b). Ld Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the following cases, the proposition that ... canvassed by Sri.A Shankar 8. Perusal of the above judgments would show that Hon’ble High Court after analyzing the purport of section 149(1)(b) has clearly laid down that unless the escaped income is above Rs 50 lakhs no action beyond three years could be taken against