← 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)

Nanjundaiah Chandraiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the filed by is allowed in above terms”

ITA 966/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Nanjundaiah Chandraiah, Vs. Ito, No.343-D 17Th Cross Road ,Ideal Homes Ward – 3(3)(1), Township Rajarajeshwarinagar Bangalore. Bangalore 560098 ,Karnataka India Pan : Acypc 8455 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sakshi Deshpande & Shri. V. Srinivasan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian B, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Sakshi Deshpande and Shri. V. Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian B, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 3(1)

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

Narasimha Rao Jammigumpula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Narasaraopet

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151ASection 69A

Ld.AR also submitted that notice under section 148 of the Act dated 07.04.2022 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2021. Ld.AR pleaded that the legal ground raised by the assessee as above, shall first be addressed before adjudicating ... under section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.04.2022 for the A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the limitation expires on 31.03.2022 as per section 149(1)(b) of the un-amended provisions. Ld.AR further submitted that as held in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited, Vijayawada vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

Amiya Shankar Ghar, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1443/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-2015 Amiya Shankar Ghar, Ward Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.08, Dewan Bazar, No.3(1), Bankura, Po: Sonamukhi, Po: Sonamukhi, Kendudihi, Dist: Bankura. Dist: Bankura. Pan/Gir No.Acypg 7746 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sen, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sankar Naskar, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sen, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Naskar, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

upholding the assessment order, which is illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction as the same is violation to provisions stipulated under section 149(1)(b) of the Act. 6. Briefly stated the facts are that the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act by issuance ... apparently after a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment years, which is in clear violation of provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. 7. In appeal, ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving any concrete findings on this issue

Gunomal Santumal Rochlani, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 4300/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Sgunomal Santumal Rochlani, Income Tax Officer, 48, Roshan Apartment, Netaji Road, Ward- 2(1)), Ullhasnagar, Vs. Kalyan-Dombivali-421301 Thane - 421004 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ahppr 0832B Appellant By : Shri Mohit S. Makhija, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohit S. Makhija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 3(1)

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 pertaining to assessment years

Sapana Rajendra Kumar Marathe, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4363/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

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. 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section ... 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

DCIT Central Circle 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1351/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69C

Hence, in view of the above, in the case of the assessee, section 149(1)(b) of the Act is applicable and instant case is covered u/s 149(1A) of the Act. Further, in view of above discussions and on the basis of seized materials, it is found that there ... section (1) of the Act, thus in the case of the assessee is covered u/s 149(1A) of the Act and the section 149(1)(b) of the Act also is applicable. d. Since three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year, thus as per provisions

Mahendrakumar Chunilal Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1267/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal."

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69C

Hence, in view of the above, in the case of the assessee, section 149(1)(b) of the Act is applicable and instant case is covered u/s 149(1A) of the Act. Further, in view of above discussions and on the basis of seized materials, it is found that there ... section (1) of the Act, thus in the case of the assessee is covered u/s 149(1A) of the Act and the section 149(1)(b) of the Act also is applicable. d. Since three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year, thus as per provisions

Pakalapati Padma Jyothi, West Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.275/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pakalapati Padma Jyothi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 D.No. 1-17, Singarajupalem Income Tax Office Muthyalamma Gudi Street Aayakar Bhawan Avapadu, Nellajerla D.No. 2-1-56/1, K.N. Road West Godavari District Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Blwpp5193B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

Ld.AR also submitted that notice under section 148 of the Act dated 04.04.2022is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2021. Ld.AR pleaded that the legal ground raised by the assessee as above, shall first be addressed before adjudicating ... under section 148 of the Act was issued on 04.04.2022 for the A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the limitation expires on 31.03.2022 as per section 149(1)(b) of the un-amended provisions. Ld.AR further submitted that as held in the case of Union of India &Ors. v. RajeevBansal

Sudharani Surisetty, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.166/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sudharani Surisetty V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 29-2-34, Opposite Judge Court Flat No. 401, 4Th Floor Main, Dabagardens Prathyakshar Bhawan Prakasharaopeta Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530020 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Cnbps4046N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

were inflated to Rs. 51,64,300/- due to erroneousinclusion of opening balance (Rs. 2,17,866/-), leading to incorrectapplication of section 149(1)(b). 5. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A), despite all evidences being on record, ought to have adjudicated on merits instead of remanding ... notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 dt. 06.04.2022 is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the ITAct, 1961 read with the proviso thereto. Since the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limit of six years, the subsequent assessment

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4504/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 69A

under section 148, is barred by time limitation as the Ld.AO while issuing the notice failed to comply with the conditions provided under section 149(1)(b) of the Act. c) it is also sumitted that the sanctioning authority is not the appropriate authority as specified under section

Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

ITA 4503/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 3(1)Section 69C

consideration lapsed on 31/03/2021. In the present facts, the notice under section 148 of the new regime was issued on 12/07/2022. As per section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, re-assessment proceedings should have been initiated under the new regime, after the expiry of three years from ... under the new regime will be applicable. The three year time limit will expire on 31 March 2022. 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist

Ketukumar Krishnavadan Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 stands allowed

ITA 4502/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4503/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 4502/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 3(1)Section 69C

consideration lapsed on 31/03/2021. In the present facts, the notice under section 148 of the new regime was issued on 12/07/2022. As per section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, re-assessment proceedings should have been initiated under the new regime, after the expiry of three years from ... under the new regime will be applicable. The three year time limit will expire on 31 March 2022. 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist

Sainik Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd, Jammu and Kashmir vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 701/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 24Section 250Section 69

fresh investments, the total income arising to the assessee will be less than 50 lakhs (fifty lakhs) and as such the provisions of section 149(1)(b) stands violated in this case. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions of 5 I.T.A. Nos. 701 & 406/Asr/2024 Assessment

Sainik Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Sainik Colony vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward-1, Jammu

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 406/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 24Section 250Section 69

fresh investments, the total income arising to the assessee will be less than 50 lakhs (fifty lakhs) and as such the provisions of section 149(1)(b) stands violated in this case. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions of 5 I.T.A. Nos. 701 & 406/Asr/2024 Assessment

Samatham Gangadhara Rao, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 320/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.320/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Samatham Gangadhara Rao V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 D.No. 19-22-5/3 Income Tax Office Sunkara Brahmaiah Nagar, J.P. Road, Sivaraopet Sbi Colony Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 [Pan:Amyps7071D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 69A

also submitted that notice under section 148 of the Act dated 19.04.2022 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2021. Ld.AR pleaded that the legal ground raised by the assessee as above, shall first be addressed before adjudicating ... under section 148 of the act was issued on 19.04.2022 for the A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the limitation expires on 31.03.2022 as per section 149(1)(b) of the un-amended provisions. She further submitted that as held in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal

Sandesh Liladhar Chaudhari, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1228/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

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

asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to Rs.1,01,90,965/- which is more than fifty lakh rupees. Thus conditions laid down in Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 are being met in the case of the assessee for year under consideration. 06. In view ... 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 (Relxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, then all the notices issued between April 1

Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2921/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Nagpal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 56(2)

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. 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section ... 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

Global Tradex Ltd. (Previously Known As Namco Steel Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6536/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian and Ms. Ruchira Singhal, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 28Section 41(1)

relevant Assessment Year. Three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 lapsed on 31.03.2020. As per section 149(1)(b) of the Act (new regime), re-assessment proceedings could have been initiated after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year only

Kamal Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Alibag vs. ITO, Ward-3, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya VaishampayanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 56Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred in not adjudicating the validity of initiation of re-assessment proceedings in terms of section 149(1)(b) as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01/04/2021. 3. There was no failure to disclose to form an opinion about escapement