“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

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

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

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

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

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)

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 4292/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

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 4291/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

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 4290/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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

Ashok Rudraraju, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 439/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 439/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ashok Rudraraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aqvpr4058L

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

facts of the case. 2. The notice issued under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 149(1)(b) (new section w.e.f. 01.04.2021) as the notice is issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year ... lakhs, therefore, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/07/2022, was barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act (as was applicable w.e.f 01/04/2021), as the said notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment

Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), New Delhi vs. Kolahai Infotech Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3399/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Kolahai, Infotech Private Limited Ward-14(3) , Room 129, First Floor Transport Centre No.305 Cr Building I.P. Punjabi Bagh New Delhi, Delhi- Estate New Delhi -110002 110034

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 14ASection 68

Income Tax Act, PART C Page 52 of 112 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 6 Income Tax officer, Ward-14(3) New Delhi vs. Kolahi Infotech Private Limited ... under section 148 of the Act is time barred. In this case the escapement income more than fifty lakh, the case covered under section 149(1)(b) of the Act, and time limit is 31-03-2026 as per the new regime. 5. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that

Pritesh Ratanshi Ved, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1618/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

applies to the entire Income Tax Act, PART C 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 7 pertaining to assessment years ... regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.” 12. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 114 of the order has observed as under: “G. Conclusions

Maratha Seva Sangh Sanchlit Dhule Dist Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Dhule vs. Assessment Unit, Itd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2183/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2183/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Maratha Seva Sangh Sanchlit V Assessment Unit, Dhule Dist Nagari Sahakari S Itd. Patsanstha Ltd., Plot No.148, Chudamani, Jay Hind Colony, Deopur Dhule, Dhule – 424002. Pan: Aactm4087D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah Revenue By Shri Pawan Bharti (Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 23.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 21.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

annulling the assessment order. FACTS:- 1.1 Reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing show cause notice u/s.148A(b) on 20/03/2022 by invoking provisions of section 149(1)(b) of I.T. Act, 1961 for escapement of income of Rs.56,75,130/- on account of deposits of cash of Rs.10

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Rajiv Gupta, Hyderabad

ITA 278/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Rajiv Gupta, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Cirle-8(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Acapg4029K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. SNSR Chinmai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 68Section 69C

assessee that as the impugned income that had escaped assessment amounted to less than Rs.50 lakhs, therefore, as per the mandate of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, no notice under section 148 of the Act could have been issued beyond the period of three years from ... Capital Gains, therefore, as the income that had escaped assessment was substantially less than the threshold limit of Rs.50 lakhs as contemplated in section 149(1)(b) of the Act, therefore, the AO was divested of his jurisdiction to have issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/07/2022

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sbk Trade and Infrastructure Private Limited, New Delhi

ITA 2173/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Cc – 04, Vs. M/S. Sbk Trade & Infrastructure Private Ltd., New Delhi. 211, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aarcs9589C) Co No.110 /Del/2025 (In Ita No.2173/Del/2025) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S. Sbk Trade & Infrastructure Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc – 04, 211, New Delhi House, New Delhi. 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aarcs9589C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-23 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 3

notice u/s 148 of the Act for the AY 2015-16 expires on 31.03.2022 i.e., six years from the end of assessment year (section 149(1)(b)). He further submitted that the provisions of the Act were envisaged under the section 3 of TOLA, which was only a relaxation provision ... 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

Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1633/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd..….……………….……….……….……Appellant 3Rd Floor, Baid Property, 10, Canning Street, Burra Bazar, Kol-1.. [Pan: Aabck1388B] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee 2. Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Said Return Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Reason That The Assessee Is The Beneficiary Of Credit Of Rs.1,28,38,232/- From Penny Stock Company M/S Steel Exchange Ltd. Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 14.07.2022. The Assessing Officer Passed An Ex Parte Order U/S 147 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 29.05.2023 Adding Rs.1,28,38,391/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

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

Pentyala Madhavi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

contention of the assessee that the said notice is barred by limitation as per the first proviso of the unamended proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra ... issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of" 149(1)(b) of the old regime.” 10. The first proviso of section 149(1)(b) prescribed under section 149(1)(a) of the old regime continues to exist for the A.Y. 2021-2022 and before. Consequently, notice under

Kalyani Koley, Howrah vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 253(3)

failed to consider that the purported notice under section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under section 149(1)(b) of the Act, as a stood prior to amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, and the same should not be proceeded with

Pjp Founation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 5000/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 250

before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice 7 PJP Foundation Trust, Mumbai. continued to exist under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1 ... expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. Sudhanshu Trivedi, Lucknow

ITA 418/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajat Jain and Akshat Jain, CAs

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(c)

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

R S Construction, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4918/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

ITO-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjaykumar Shankarlal Export Private Limited, Navi Mumba

ITA 4157/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

clearly established that the and bank accounts, squarely falls within the ambit of "asset" and "entries in books of account" as envisaged under Section 149(1)(b). Hence, the AO was legally empowered to issue a notice for reassessment within ten years from the end of the relevant assessment year ... here. Therefore, the Revenue submits that the reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 is well within the extended ten- year limit under Section 149(1)(b), supported by cogent survey material evidencing escaped income exceeding 50 lakh, and duly compliant with all procedural safeguards. The assessee's interpretation

ACIT 27 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Bhavesh Ranchhodas Madiyar, Mumbai

ITA 4028/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

ACIT 27 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Bhavesh Ranchhodas Madiyar, Mumbai

ITA 4026/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

Amit Suresh Agrawal, Satara vs. ITO Ward-2, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2225/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

27th August 2022, is void ab initio and bad in law, having been issued in violation of the mandatory monetary threshold prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, and is therefore liable to be quashed. 2. The sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act required

Smt. Sobha Rani, Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 35(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5429/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Yudhistet Mehtani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

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

which falls within the three year time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(a) of the Act, because as per the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) (as amended by Finance Act, 2021), the permissible time limit for issuance of notice for AY 2017-18 expired ... which falls within the three year time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(a) of the Act, because as per the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) (as amended by Finance Act, 2021), the permissible time limit for issuance of notice for AY 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2021. This position