“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)

Elsie Hubald, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: 19.06.2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 69

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. **** 48. Notices have to be judged according to the law existing on the date the notice is issued. Section ... 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

Sonu Jain Through Legal Heir and Father of Late Sonu Jain Shri Rajendra Jain, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer Guna, Guna

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 158/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

erred in not dealing to the reassessment proceedings were invalid because same was initiated beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b), Thus whole entire assessment time-barred and unsustainable in law. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A)has erred ... dead person. Further it is challenged that the notice u/s 148A was issued without proper approval and beyond the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Since all these grounds are pertaining to the legality of the reassessment order, therefore, they are taken together for consideration

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Vejalpur Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Jagabhai Bharwad, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1834/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri

Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 69A

reassessment proceedings and the subsequent addition of Rs. 6.80 crore under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee submitted that as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, when issuing a notice under Section 148 beyond the period of three years, prior sanction must be obtained from a specified

ITO-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Warasgaon Lake View Hotels Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-

ITA 2788/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 3(1)Section 68

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(1), New Delhi vs. Girish Kumar Gupta, Delhi

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

ITA 5366/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 68Section 69

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

Rising Star Investment, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwin Chhag, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

alleged is Rs.1,10,39,000/- which has been added by ld. Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. Thus, there is violation of section 149(1)(b) as well as section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Agarwal ... Investment AY 2017-18 Ashish Agarwal (supra) decision have to meet the test of new regime. The applicability of the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime has to be tested on the date of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Even

Varun Gupta, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Meerut

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

ITA 1215/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69

prescribes Page 5 of 11 ITA No. 1215/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2012-13] Shri Varun Gupta Vs. ITO service of notice but it is section 149(1)(b) which prescribes the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. As per section 149(1)(b) notice ... find that the assessee has purchased the immoveable property on 12.12.2011 and the case pertains to A.Y 2012-13. Therefore, as per section 149(1)(b), notice u/s 148 of the Act can only be issued before the end of six years i.e. 31.03.2019. In the case in hand, admittedly

Prakash Babulal Bhandari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, we are of the considered view that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A of the Act was barred by limitation and hence, the appeal of the assessee succeeds

ITA 737/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kirit B. Soni, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 69

Court), the Delhi High Court held that since the escaped income of Rs. 46.17 lakhs was below the 50 lakhs threshold set by Section 149(1)(b) in the amended provisions, accordingly, the re-assessment was unsustainable due to non-fulfilment of the monetary threshold. Prakash Babulal Bhandari

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, New Delhi vs. Harish Kumar, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4676/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 94(7)

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 ... 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

Harish Kumar, Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4602/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 3Section 94(7)

Trans World International Llc, Wilmington, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Civic Centre, Near Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

erred in issuing notice under section 148 as the same cannot be issued as per the provisions of section 149(1)(b) in the absence of any income escaped assessment represented in the form of 'asset'. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in issuing notice under section 148 as the same cannot be issued as per the provisions of section 149(1)(b) in the absence of any income escaped assessment represented in the form of 'asset'. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the draft

Trans World International Llc, Wilmington, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 1961/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

Trans World International Llc, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (International Taxation) - 3(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 1960/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Mohamedali Shabanali Badami, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 913/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Kirith Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 4

lakhs is chargeable to tax being represented by the transaction in immovable property has escaped assessment. He also noted that conditions of section 149(1)(b) are also satisfied. Based on this order, notice u/s. 4 Mohamedali Shabanali Badami, AY 2015-16 148 was issued dated 09.04.2022 requiring the assessee ... relevant Assessment Year, i.e., Assessment Year 2015-16, which is contrary to the mandate of the first proviso below section 149(1)(b) and therefore the impugned notice is invalid, bad in law, leading to the impugned assessment proceedings as well as the impugned assessment order

Shivani Tayal, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 49(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5833/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivani Tayal Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-27, Shop No.9-10, Ward 49(1), Mansarovar Garden, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Andpt8647E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69C

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

Saif Ali Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)- Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeded on primary submission of ld

ITA 2131/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Saif Ali Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi/ Acit, Flat No. 1001/02, Fortune Heights, 29Th Vs Circle-16(1), Mumbai Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. [Pan No. Aahpk0520E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.K. Lalkaka, Ca Revenue By Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 28.03.2025 Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 155Section 251Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Shri Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot

ITA 724/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

basis of so-called documents/data seized from the premises of third party and averment made in justification of compliance with the provision of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. It was submitted that provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, empowers an authority to issue notice ... proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act is incurably and defective. In para-3 of SCN, it is stated that the provision of Section 149(1)(b) has been followed by taking approval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no mention of asset or expenditure represented

DCIT, Central Circle 2, Rajkot vs. Shri Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot

ITA 723/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT-ACIT, Central Circle -2, Rajkot.

ITA 581/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT-ACIT, Central Circle -2, Rajkot

ITA 547/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D.M Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148