← 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)

Late Lodaya Navalbai Raichand by Legal Heir Shri. Sharad R Lodaya, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gadag

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on Ground nos

ITA 39/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, Advocate
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

name of the legal heir just before the completion of assessment proceeding on 27.12.2018 is also barred by time as per provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. The case law relied by the Ld.DR is distinguished on the ground that the assessment notice was issued

Arvind Dada Kolekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4137/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHARI (Accountant Member)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

reassessment beyond 3 years, since the alleged taxable income escaping assessment does not exceed the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act, thereby rendering the reopening time barred. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case ... reason that the income alleged to escaping assessment was much less than Rs. 50,00,000/- as per the condition precedent in Section 149(1)(b), whereas in the reasons recorded the ld. AO has alleged the amount escaping assessment was for sum of Rs.18,05,500/-. This fact

Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1912/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration, approval may kindly be granted to issue notice u/s 148 r.w provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2012-13.” (Varunesh Mishra) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-26(e), New Delhi

Sunil Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3314/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Sunil Kapoor, Vs. Acit K-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Circle Intt. New Delhi-110 024 Taxation 2(1)(2) Pan Aoips5698J New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Tyagi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

could not be called upon to verify the 10 year old transaction through Appellant to the extent of beyond reasonable doubt. Even under Section 149(1) (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee cannot be called upon to furnish the particulars income beyond a period of 10 years

Devinder Singh Sahney, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1585/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwal, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, Fenil Bhatt &For Respondent: S/Shri Miland Chavan & Anil Sant, Sr. DRs
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

time barred and hence, subsequent proceedings arising there from are void-ab-initio. Referring to the provisions of section 149(1) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1/07/2012, he submitted that for invoking jurisdiction u/s. 148 of 5 the Act, the Revenue has placed reliance ... provisions of section 149(1)(c) of the Act. Clause (c) of section 149(1) provides that where more than four years but not more than 16 years have elapsed from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued unless

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

Sudesh Taneja v. 2022 TaxPub(DT) 805 (Raj-HC) : (2022) 442 ITR 289 (Raj) holding that new time limits as per substituted section 149(1)(b) not to apply to notices time barred under old provisions The time limits for issuing notice for reassessment have been changed. The concept ... contrary. Time limits for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act have been modified under substituted section 149. The first proviso to section 149(1) provides that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning

Nikunj Kaushik Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 2919/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalnikunj Kaushik Shah, 201, Laxmi Palace Chsl, Vileparle (East), Mumbai- 400057, Pan: Apeps6446R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-32(1), R. No. 335, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kothari, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

erred in initiating reassessment proceedings after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year even though the requirement of section 149(1)(b) of the Act were not satisfied in the facts of the present case. 8) The Id. AO erred in reopening the assessment

M/S Citi Plaza, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 356/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 250

alongwith objection filed before the ld. AO against the jurisdiction for issuance of notice u/s 148 which is itself time barred as per section 149(1) (b) of the Act. The notice is supposed to within 31.3.2013 but it was served on 06.03.2014. 4.2 The ld. AR invited our attention ... record. Considering the argument first, we adjudicate the limitation for service of notice U/s 148 on dated 06/03/2014 by violation of section 149(1)(b) I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 22 Assessment Year: 2006-07 of the Act. The assessee had declared the primary fact accordingly assessment was completed

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. Anand Persad Jaiswal, New Dehi

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2742/DEL/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2003-04 The Dcit, Central Circle-04, New Delhi Anand Persad Jaiswal, 54, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, New Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Adrpj 2549 M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr For Assessee: Shri Deepchand Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-23, New Delhi Dated 25.08.2022 For Ay 2003-04. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Quashing The Assessment Order Relying On The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Brahm. Dutt (100 Taxmann.Com 324) Without Appreciating That The Amendment To Sec 149(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Finance Act, 2021 Was Retrospective In Nature In View Of Explanation To Sec 149 As Held By Itat (D Bench Mumbai) In The Case Of Dilip J. Thakkar (135 Taxmann.Com 208) After Considering The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In Brahm Dutt (Supra).

For Appellant: Shri Deepchand Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT reported as 100 taxmann.com 324 (Del.) without appreciating that the amendment to section 149(1) of the Act by Finance Act 2021, was retrospective in nature in view of explanation to section 149 of the Act as has been

DCIT, CC-4, New Delhi vs. SMC Foods Road, Uttarpradesh

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2036/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Smc Foods Ltd, Central Circle-4, 4/654, Bomaji Road, New Delhi Saharanpur, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcs9564R

For Appellant: Shri. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Amitabh Kumar Singha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 150Section 153ASection 250Section 69C

taken up u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and that all the ingredients of proviso to section 147 and the provisions of section 149(1)(b) are fulfilled in the facts of this case.” 3. The ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT DR erred in holding that

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

issued for the relevant AY if it exceeds the time limit prescribed in Section 149 of the IT Act. As per Section 149(1), the time limit to issue a notice under Section 148 is four years from the end of the relevant AY when the escaped assessment amount

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

issued for the relevant AY if it exceeds the time limit prescribed in Section 149 of the IT Act. As per Section 149(1), the time limit to issue a notice under Section 148 is four years from the end of the relevant AY when the escaped assessment amount

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

issued for the relevant AY if it exceeds the time limit prescribed in Section 149 of the IT Act. As per Section 149(1), the time limit to issue a notice under Section 148 is four years from the end of the relevant AY when the escaped assessment amount

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

issued for the relevant AY if it exceeds the time limit prescribed in Section 149 of the IT Act. As per Section 149(1), the time limit to issue a notice under Section 148 is four years from the end of the relevant AY when the escaped assessment amount

Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

furnished to us there is no averment that the income likely to escape assessment is Rs.One lakh or more as mandated by section 149(1)(b), this makes the entire process of reopening bad in law and the oorder passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 would be a nullity

Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

furnished to us there is no averment that the income likely to escape assessment is Rs.One lakh or more as mandated by section 149(1)(b), this makes the entire process of reopening bad in law and the oorder passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 would be a nullity

Sultan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 29/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aascs 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ray, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

issued between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 , cannot be conducted by giving benefit of releaxation/extension under TOLA, 2020, and the time limit prescribed in Section 149(1)(b) (as substituted w.e.f. 01.04.2021) cannot be counted by giving such relaxation from 30.03.2020. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that in respect ... proceedings where the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is attracted , benefit of TOLA, 2020 will not be available to Revenue, or in other words, the relaxation law under TOLA, 2020 would not govern the time frame prescribed under the first proviso to Section 149 as inserted

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

that the 5 case was reopened for the impugned assessment year after four years but before six years. The Ld. AR referred to section 149(1)(b) of the Act wherein the reasons recorded for reopening should specify that there is an escapement of income above Rs.1 lakh ... this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has not mentioned or reopened the case in accordance with the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. In support of his contention that in the absence of anything in reasons recorded to suggest that the income chargeable

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

that the 5 case was reopened for the impugned assessment year after four years but before six years. The Ld. AR referred to section 149(1)(b) of the Act wherein the reasons recorded for reopening should specify that there is an escapement of income above Rs.1 lakh ... this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has not mentioned or reopened the case in accordance with the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. In support of his contention that in the absence of anything in reasons recorded to suggest that the income chargeable

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

that the 5 case was reopened for the impugned assessment year after four years but before six years. The Ld. AR referred to section 149(1)(b) of the Act wherein the reasons recorded for reopening should specify that there is an escapement of income above Rs.1 lakh ... this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has not mentioned or reopened the case in accordance with the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. In support of his contention that in the absence of anything in reasons recorded to suggest that the income chargeable