“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)

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5117/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Mohd Shareef, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Moradabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1107/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Kranti, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

fact that there was absolutely no incriminating material found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2016-17. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act mandate the existence of incriminating material found during the course of search which constitutes income and which is represented

Venkata Suryanarayana Viswanadham, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 353/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2015-16 Venkata Suryanarayana Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Viswanadham, Vizayanagaram. Vizianagaram. Pan : Adnpv5136A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar (Hybrid) Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar (HYBRID)For Respondent: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250oSection 69A

notice was issued beyond the permissible time limit of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. The amount of income alleged to have escaped assessment

Ranjit Thakur, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 1121/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

notice dated 11.04.2018, he preferred to remain silent. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Undisputedly, Section 149(1)(b), as it stood prior to the introduction of the amendments by way of Finance Act, 2021 prescribed that no notice under Section ... would have rendered the initiation of reassessment impermissible in law. Therefore, the impugned notice when tested on the anvil of the pre-amendment Section 149(1)(b) to be sustained would have to meet the prescription of ‘six years’. Undisputedly, that period in respect of AY 2011-12 came

Sunil Garg, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

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

ITA 1215/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Jan 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

Integrated Core Strategies (Asia) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2608/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68Section 90

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

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4348/MUM/2024[2003 04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.4324,4331 & 4345 to 4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT,CC-8(2) Vs

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4347/MUM/2024[2004 05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.4324,4331 & 4345 to 4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT,CC-8(2) Vs

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4346/MUM/2024[2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.4324,4331 & 4345 to 4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT,CC-8(2) Vs

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4345/MUM/2024[2006 07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.4324,4331 & 4345 to 4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT,CC-8(2) Vs

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4331/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

ITA Nos.4324,4331 & 4345 to 4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT, CC-8(2) Vs. Late Shri Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4324/MUM/2024[2002 03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.4324,4331 & 4345 to 4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT,CC-8(2) Vs

Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 48(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1272/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

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

Viswanadh Kandula, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1085/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

circumstance of the case, sanction under Section 151 of the Act, has been granted mechanically and without satisfaction that how it fits under Section 149(1)(b)(i) and Section 149(1)(b)(ii). Accordingly Page 2 of 78 ITA Nos 1084 to 1088 and 1207 of 2025 ACE Tyres ... circumstance of the case, sanction under Section 151 of the Act, has been granted mechanically and without satisfaction that how it fits under Section 149(1)(b)(i) and Section 149(1)(b)(iii). Accordingly grant of sanction is liable to be declared as nullity and invalid and resultantly, impugned

Yogesh Ashok Mundade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 11(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5084/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh M. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

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 ... 30/06/2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the extension of TOLA time limit in the following manners:- “54. The proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime uses the expression "beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (1) of this section

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 New Delhi, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

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

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

Arnab Kumar Goswami, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1710/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1710/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arnab Kumar Goswami……….. ……..…..…………………....Appellant Flat – 1C, Subham Apartment, Narayantala East, Baguiati, Kolkata – 700059. [Pan: Ahbpg0395G] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Dilip Sahu, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 01, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 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’). 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,52,310/- During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessee Purchased An Immovable Property At Rajarhat At Sale Consideration Of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property As Per Deed Of Conveyance Dated 05.09.2016 Was Rs.35,36,655/-. The Difference Of Rs.10,36,655/- Was Splitted Between The Assessee & His Spouse Amounting To Rs.5,18,327/-. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Invoked Section 56(2)(Vii) Of The Act & Added Rs.5,18,327/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee As ‘Income From Other Sources’ While Framing Assessment. The

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

that the reassessment notice u/s 148 of the Act was beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act which specified the limitation period of 3 years. The ld. AR stated that in the case of the assessee

ACIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Orbit Financial Capital, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5812/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 147

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 ... 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

Ashok Amratlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 4286/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2015-16 - A.Y. 2016-17 - A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151A

such, it is held that no such protection for the appellant against the reassessment proceedings is available as per the provisions of the section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Further, the case law relied upon by the appellant have been perused and it is seen facts of the case ... Ashish Agarwal (supra) and the escaped income for AY 2015-16 exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, and therefore, the extended limitation period under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act applied. The Ld. DR could not present any contrary facts or rulings to refute the submissions of the Ld. AR. Respectfully