“Section 149(1)(b)”

Devalbai Karsan Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Devalbai Karsan Parmar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(1)(1), H9, B-401, Herumb Chs, 3Rd Floor, New Mhada Colony, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Kamgar Nagar, Lalbaugh, Near Tilak Nagar Mumbai-400012. Railway Station, Chembur, Mumbai-400024. Pan: Aispp0021A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shashank Mehta For Revenue : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.Dr

thereafter, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28-07-2022. It was submitted that the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act permits issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year only ... Jurisdictional High Court in Bhavesh Maganlal Dharod v. ITO [2023] 155 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay) held as follows:- 11 "3.........Under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act no notice can be issued if the amount is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Further, if Section 149(1)(b

Sonali Dharmendra Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

which goes to show that the income escaping assessment, has not exceeded Rs.50,00,000/- and therefore in view of the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act; after elapsing of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, notice u/s 148 of the Act could

Mr Rahat Mohammed Riyazuddin Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

escaped assessment is Rs.26,05,000/- 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. 5.2. Hon Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Agarwal ... reassessment proceeding pursuant to 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

ACIT Circle - 22(1), Mumbai vs. Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

Darshana Vishnu Murkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)3, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Acned in initiating reassessment proceeding under section 148 in volition of provision of section 149(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as there is no income escapement above 50 lakhs represented in form of asset. 3. On the facts

Income Tax Officer -42(1)(3), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra vs. Krishna Deep Builders, Mumbai

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Krishna Deep Builders Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping Arcade, Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Road, Vs. 41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) Krishna Deep Builders Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Arcade, Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Road, Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri. Ajay Singh Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The

possession of materials which elucidate that income amounting to Rs. 50 lac or more has escaped assessment as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. AR argued that in the present case, notice u/s. 148 and 148A has been issued only for income which has escaped assessment ... years but not more than 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year which would squarely fall under the provision of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which provision is cited hereinunder for ease of reference: “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued

Krishna Deep Builders, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-42(1)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Krishna Deep Builders Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping Arcade, Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Road, Vs. 41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) Ito Ward – 42(1)(3) Krishna Deep Builders Room No. 715, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To B/203, 2Nd Floor, Goyal Shopping C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Arcade, Opp. Railway Station, S. V. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Road, Borivali, West, Mumbai – 400092. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk375Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri. Ajay Singh Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The

possession of materials which elucidate that income amounting to Rs. 50 lac or more has escaped assessment as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. AR argued that in the present case, notice u/s. 148 and 148A has been issued only for income which has escaped assessment ... years but not more than 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year which would squarely fall under the provision of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which provision is cited hereinunder for ease of reference: “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued

Stc Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhri

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

Stc Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Incoem Tax Department, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhri

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

Lalit Surajprakash Garg, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA 6125/Mum/2024 (A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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. 5.2 Section 149 of the Act, prior to its amendment ... 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 the assessment years

Lalit Surajprakash Garg, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA 6125/Mum/2024 (A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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. 5.2 Section 149 of the Act, prior to its amendment ... 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 the assessment years