← All Phrases

“Section 149(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 149Section 149(1)(b)664 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 149(1)(b)

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.

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.

7.14 In CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd.
196 ITR 149 · 1992 · Supreme Court
120
citing judgments

Incentive provisions in the Income-tax Act, particularly those granting deductions for new industrial undertakings, must be construed liberally to achieve their legislative purpose. This principle guides the interpretation of conditions such as what constitutes a 'new undertaking' versus a 'splitting up or reconstruction' of an existing business for claiming deductions.

Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes
174 Taxmann.com 144 · 2025 · Supreme Court
70
citing judgments

Reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021, for Assessment Year 2015-16 are time-barred. The relaxation provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, does not extend the period of limitation for such notices.

Ravi Badalia v. DCIT
158 Taxmann.com 373 · Reported
42
citing judgments

Additions made in respect of credits reflected in foreign bank accounts for unabated assessment years must be based on incriminating material found during the search.

M B Traders v. ACIT
132 TTJ 490 · 2010 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

Section 148 notices can be issued at any time for assessments or reassessments made in consequence of or to give effect to any final finding, direction, or order of any higher authority.

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.

P. Satyanarayana Chetty v. Income Tax Officer
101 ITR 385 · 1975 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Sanction for reassessment proceedings under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act must be granted with due application of mind and cannot be a mechanical or routine exercise.

Judgments citing Section 149(1)(b)

Anita Tomar, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Meerut

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6455/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year herein AY 2016-17. The Revenue could hardly dispute that going by section 149(1)(b) of the Act, the only exception in clauses (i) to (iii) which has been stipulated by the legislature is in an instance ... tribunal finds merit in the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal ground/argument to quash the impugned reopening as barred by limitation under section 149(1)(b) to reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced

Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.543/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid Hearing) Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 301, B/H Golden Point, Anmol Vs. Ward-3(1)(5), Complex Nana Varachha, Surat - 395001 Surat-395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aowpk 3567 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

which could not be explained. The AO has added Rs.89,200/- as unexplained investment in the assessment order. As per provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, no notice u/s 148 shall be issued for relevant assessment year, if four years, but not more than six years, have

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Adajan vs. Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 720/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Ito, Vs. Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Ward – 1(3)(1), 5, Raghuvir Bungalow, City Light Surat Road, Bharthana, B.O. Umra, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk7796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.36/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Arising Out Of Ita No.720/Srt/2024) Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Vs. Ito, 5, Raghuvir Bungalow, City Light Road, Ward – 1(3)(1), Bharthana, B.O. Umra, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk7796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Bhargav Ram Munagapati, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 69A

151A of the Act and hence are invalid. 2. The notice issued u/s 148 dt. 03.04.2022 is barred by limitation as per section 149(1)(b) read with the proviso thereto, having been issued beyond the prescribed period of six years. In view of this the reassessment order passed ... nature and goes to the root of the matter. 6. "The notice issued u/s 148 dt. 03.04.2022 is barred by limitation as per section 149(1)(b) read with the proviso thereto, having been issued beyond the prescribed period of six years. In view of this the reassessment order passed

Santosh Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

ITA 400/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

For Appellant: Shri Shalabh Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

Nitin Nema Vs Pr.CCIT (2023) 155 taxmann.com 276 (MP HC): This ruling similarly highlighted that for the extended period of limitation under Section 149(1)(b) to apply, the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment must amount to or be likely to amount to ₹50 lakh or more

K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2092/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Any Other Issue.

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

conceded on behalf of the Revenue that all notices issued under the new regime by invoking the six year time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees

Hilton Dealmark Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal vs. Circle 7(1), Kolkata, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross Objection

ITA 1002/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 20Section 250

TOLA 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 TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years ... 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

DCIT CC 2 2, Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1259/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 | The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

form of asset or expenditure or any entry in books of accounts, has escaped assessment, whose likely quantum is Rs.50 lacs or more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which is of utmost relevance to the present case ... regime for AY 2021-2022 and earlier years only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b), 153A(1)(b) or 153C of the old regime. It is well settled in law that, notices have to be judged according

DCIT CC 2 2, Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1257/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

form of asset or expenditure or any entry in books of accounts, has escaped assessment, whose likely quantum is Rs.50 lacs or more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which is of utmost relevance to the present case ... regime for AY 2021-2022 and earlier years only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b), 153A(1)(b) or 153C of the old regime. It is well settled in law that, notices have to be judged according

DCIT CC 2 2, Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1256/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 148Section 20Section 250

accounts, has escaped assessment, whose likely entry in books of accounts, has escaped assessment, whose likely quantum is Rs.50 lacs or more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the quantum is Rs.50 lacs or more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the quantum is Rs.50 lacs ... more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which is of utmost relevance t proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which is of utmost relevance t proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1236/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 148Section 20Section 250

accounts, has escaped assessment, whose likely entry in books of accounts, has escaped assessment, whose likely quantum is Rs.50 lacs or more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the quantum is Rs.50 lacs or more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the quantum is Rs.50 lacs ... more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which is of utmost relevance t proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which is of utmost relevance t proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 1234/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

form of asset or expenditure or any entry in books of accounts, has escaped assessment, whose likely quantum is Rs.50 lacs or more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which is of utmost relevance to the present case ... regime for AY 2021-2022 and earlier years only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b), 153A(1)(b) or 153C of the old regime. It is well settled in law that, notices have to be judged according

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1232/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

form of asset or expenditure or any entry in books of accounts, has escaped assessment, whose likely quantum is Rs.50 lacs or more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which is of utmost relevance to the present case ... regime for AY 2021-2022 and earlier years only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b), 153A(1)(b) or 153C of the old regime. It is well settled in law that, notices have to be judged according

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt.. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1231/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

form of asset or expenditure or any entry in books of accounts, has escaped assessment, whose likely quantum is Rs.50 lacs or more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which is of utmost relevance to the present case ... regime for AY 2021-2022 and earlier years only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b), 153A(1)(b) or 153C of the old regime. It is well settled in law that, notices have to be judged according

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

ITA 1163/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

form of asset or expenditure or any entry in books of accounts, has escaped assessment, whose likely quantum is Rs.50 lacs or more [Section 149(1)(b)]. We now come to the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which is of utmost relevance to the present case ... regime for AY 2021-2022 and earlier years only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under section 149(1)(b), 153A(1)(b) or 153C of the old regime. It is well settled in law that, notices have to be judged according

Shambhu Dayal Soni, Ramganj Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

ITO(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3674/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

relevant assessment year i.e., AY 2015-16. According to the assessee, it is contrary to the mandate of the first proviso below section 149(1)(b) and therefore is invalid, bad in law and leading the impugned assessment proceedings as well as the impugned assessment order bad in law, liable ... regime. Thus, first proviso to section 149 under the new regime limits the retrospective operation to protect the interest of assessees. Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime provided a time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year for issuing notice under Section

Income Tax Officer (It)-3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3523/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

relevant assessment year i.e., AY 2015-16. According to the assessee, it is contrary to the mandate of the first proviso below section 149(1)(b) and therefore is invalid, bad in law and leading the impugned assessment proceedings as well as the impugned assessment order bad in law, liable ... regime. Thus, first proviso to section 149 under the new regime limits the retrospective operation to protect the interest of assessees. Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime provided a time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year for issuing notice under Section

Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3440/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

relevant assessment year i.e., AY 2015-16. According to the assessee, it is contrary to the mandate of the first proviso below section 149(1)(b) and therefore is invalid, bad in law and leading the impugned assessment proceedings as well as the impugned assessment order bad in law, liable ... regime. Thus, first proviso to section 149 under the new regime limits the retrospective operation to protect the interest of assessees. Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime provided a time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year for issuing notice under Section

Magnolia Martinique Clothing Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 17, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4293/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Dushayant Chaudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

section 148A despite the fact that the notice under section 148 issued on 30.06.2021 was beyond the permissible limitation period as per amended section 149(1)(b), and no valid "asset” representing escaped income exceeding Rs.50 lakhs was identified. 3. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer