“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)

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

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

ITA 390/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

Income Tax Officer Ward -2 (1), Amritsar vs. Ms. Savita Bansal, Through Legal Heir Sh. Parveen Kumar Bansal, Amritsar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 240/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 240/Asr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Smt. Savita Bansal Ward-2(1) बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Amritsar 143001 H.No. 272, Green Avenue Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No. 1/Amritsar/2024 (In Ita No. 240/Asr/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Savita Bansal Income Tax Officer बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Ward-2(1) H.No. 272, Green Avenue Amritsar 143001 Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Dr Rakesh Gupta (Advocate) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Srinivas Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 1. 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Dr Rakesh Gupta (Advocate) –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

ever issued upon the petitioner during the period of limitation. Consequently the proceedings against the petitioner are barred by limitation as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. As in the present case proceedings were not initiated/pending against the assessee when he was alive and after his death

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Kamlaprabha L/H of Late Shri Gopal Lal Ji Goswami, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

ITA 94/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-Sr.DR a

Section 144Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Tuffwud India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 571/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

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

ITO, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat vs. Kishor Bhanubhai Asodaria, Surat

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

ITA 1245/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 68Section 69

also refer to the said date. On the said date, if a notice could not have been issued under the erstwhile provision of section 149(1)(b) for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2021, the notice cannot be issued even under ... provisions. [Para 24] ■ Section 149(1)(b) of the erstwhile provisions provided a time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year for issuing notice under section 148. For the relevant assessment year, being assessment year 2015-2016, 6th year expired on 31st March

Raj Rani Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(1), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3418/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

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 (Relation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, then all the notices issued between April 1

Hiral Tapankumar Chudgar, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 44/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

under Section 148 of the Act for an assessment year cannot be issued beyond the period of three years unless the conditions under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act are satisfied. Thus, one of the said conditions is that the income alleged to have escaped assessment exceeds ... asset', notwithstanding that the said asset is on account of income that escaped assessment for more than one previous years, the condition under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would be satisfied, if the value of the asset exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs. The same would hold true if there

Hiral Tapankumar Chudgar, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 43/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

under Section 148 of the Act for an assessment year cannot be issued beyond the period of three years unless the conditions under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act are satisfied. Thus, one of the said conditions is that the income alleged to have escaped assessment exceeds Rs.50 lakhs ... asset', notwithstanding that the said asset is on account of income that escaped assessment for more than one previous years, the condition under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would be satisfied, if the value of the asset exceeds Rs.50 lakhs. The same would hold true if there

Shaival Comcon LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 549/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

proceeding in a mechanical manner, is not sustainable in law. In that case, the reassessment proceedings were quashed due to erroneous reference to section 149(1)(b) and mechanical sanctioning of approval by the PCIT without independent verification, and these principles squarely apply to the present facts as well. Accordingly

Clan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai

ITA 2303/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 148Section 148ASection 149

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

Khajamoinuddin Mahammad, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 571/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

ground challenging the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act, contending that the said notice was barred by limitation under section 149(1)(b). The Ld. AR invited our attention to the notice issued under section 148A(a) dated 09.02.2023 wherein the Ld. AO had referred ... only escapement of income, if any, is Rs.32,13,500/-, which is below the monetary threshold of Rs.50,00,000/- specified in section 149(1)(b) of the Act. 7. He further submitted that, the relevant assessment year is 2016— 17 and the notice under section 148 was issued

Rsd Containers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

decided is whether 'bogus loans and advances' as recorded by the assessing officer represent in the form of asset as prescribed by section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Section 149(1)(b) of the Act at the relevant period of time prescribes that the escaped income must be represented ... managed by 'Mr. Shripal Vohra' and 'Bogus Loans and Advances is defined in the Income Tax Act as Type of "asset" as per section 149(1)(b). 7.5 Since, escapement is covered under the definition of "assets" prescribed under section 149(1)(b). I hold that the issue based

Pareshpari Pravinpari Gosai, Morbi vs. ITO WD-1 Morvi, Morvi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.258/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

period of three years, that is, reopening of assessee`s case was done beyond three years. The learned Counsel submitted that as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act, the income chargeable to tax of Rs. 50 lakhs or more, should escape assessment, to reopen the assessee`s assessment

Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Moradiya Gems LLP, Mumbai

ITA 6578/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalito, Ward – 19(2)(2) Vs. Moradia Gems Llp 503, 5Th Floor, Piramal Unit No. 2, The Jewel Chamber, Lalbaug – Mama Parmanand 400012. Marg, Opera House, Mumbai – 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aawfm5039P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 3Section 69A

section (1) of this section, asthey stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. A perusal of the First proviso to section 149(1)(b) clearly states that if a notice u/s. 148 was time barred as per the provisions prior to amendment vide finance ... Thus we submit that the impugned notice dated 28-07-2022 as issued u/s.148 iscontrary to provisions of first proviso to section 149(1)(b), and clear cutverdict and directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision Dt. 4th May2022. In view facts, circumstances and judicial decisions as stated

Omkar Ramchandra Velhal, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 672/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vinay Bhamore & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.672/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Omkar Ramchandra Velhal, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.183/3, Omkar Near S Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Ganga Hospital, A Ward Dudhali, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. Pan: Asipv6553D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing None Shri Aknath Abhang – Addl.Cit(Dr) 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By 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 21.01.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68

Oveen Naveen Lewis, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int. Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

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. 47. **** (emphasised supplied) 48. Notices have to be judged according to the law existing on the date the notice ... 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

Urvi Hitalkumar Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai, Bkc

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2406/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2406/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Urvi Hitalkumar Patel V/S. Income Tax Officer, B 1101, Shreenath Tower, बिाम Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai Shankar Lane, Kandivali Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, West 400067 Bkc, Bandra East 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Cevpp8858L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Manish Sheth राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShethFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69

NFAC- Delhi, erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the ld. AO which was in violation of section 149(1)(b) of The Income Tax Act 1961, since the assessment is barred by the limitation. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2406/Mum/2025 AY 2015-16 Urvi Hitalkumar ... whose stamp duty value is Rs. 37,26,000/- which is well below the limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- set by section 149(1)(b) for initiating reassessment proceedings beyond the period of 3 years. 3. The assessee craves Your Honour's leave to add, alter or amend

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shantilal Chimanlal Sheth, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 6867/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Jeet Kamdar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shantilal Chimanlal Sheth, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 6866/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Jeet Kamdar, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

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

Balbir Singh, Delhi vs. AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5767/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 5755/Del/2024 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 5756/Del/2024 (A.Y 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 5761/Del/2024 (A.Y 2015-16)

Section 148Section 148oSection 149Section 149(1)

such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of section 149(1)(b), as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. 15. Section 149 of the Act, prior to its amendment