← 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)

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1900/AHD/2019[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1899/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1898/AHD/2019[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1897/AHD/2019[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1896/AHD/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1895/AHD/2019[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P.Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT. Central Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 1894/AHD/2019[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Sree Sai Sameera Pharmacy, Nandigama vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 103/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 103/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sree Sai Sameera Pharmacy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 22-135, Ankamma Temple Street, Ward-1(1), Nandigama, Krishna District, Vijayawada. Andhra Pradesh – 521185. Pan: Acvfs1385F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

impugned assessment year exceeds the statutory time limit since the alleged escapement of income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. As per section 149(1)(b) of the Act, the permissible time frame for issuing such notice is three years, which has been surpassed in this instance. 8. For these

Mahendra Singh, Sikar vs. ITO Ward Neem Ka Thana, Neem Ka Thana

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

ITA 440/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)
Section 144Section 147Section 149(1)(b)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

circumstances of the case and in law, Assessing Officer grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings in this case ignoring the proviso of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the entire Assessment Proceeding is without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT-14.1.1, Mumbai vs. Amcor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3842/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

thus submitted by the Ld. AR that the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is after the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act and hence it is time barred. 16. Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order

Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Chennai vs. DCIT (International Tax)-1 (1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 349/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.349/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers, International Taxation 1(1) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aadcd 3705D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 155(14)

Form 26AS. 3.7. The Ld. AO initiated the re-assessment proceedings, when the notice u/s.148 is barred by limitation in pursuance of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, as the notice u/s.148 can be issued beyond three years and up to 10 years, only if any income chargeable

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Motech Software Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2295/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 69

Motech Software Pvt. Ltd., IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Motech Software Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2294/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal &
Section 69

Motech Software Pvt. Ltd., IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH "D", MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Pankaj Surech Rach, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2290/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 50C

which alleged escapement is less than Rs.50,00,000/-, notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation considering Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. This issue has been duly considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ganesh Dass Khanna

Purohit Food Products Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 10(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2678/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2015-16 Purohit Food Products Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-10(3)(1), 1-10, Dhiraj Pen Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 58-59, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai. J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai. Pan : Aagcp5590F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Singh A/W. Shri Akshay Pawar, For Revenue : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh a/wFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Ajay Bankda, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4444/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Hirawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

that was beyond the prescribed period of limitation admittedly expired on 31.03.2018, as set out in section 149(1)(b) of the Act and therefore, cannot be considered as valid notice for reopening of the case and/or for making the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act. We also observe

M/S Venkateswar Medicare Pvt. Ltd., ITO, Ward-2(1) vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1417/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

made addition only of Rs.35,50,000/- in respect of non genuine unsecured loans and, therefore, the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act do not apply to the instant case. Even on this ground the assessment framed by the AO is bad in law. In defense ... such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the old Section 149(1)(b) of the limit for issue of notice under the old Section 148 of the Act had expired in terms of the old Section 149

M/S Venkateswar Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1416/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

made addition only of Rs.35,50,000/- in respect of non genuine unsecured loans and, therefore, the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act do not apply to the instant case. Even on this ground the assessment framed by the AO is bad in law. In defense ... such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the old Section 149(1)(b) of the limit for issue of notice under the old Section 148 of the Act had expired in terms of the old Section 149

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Anilkumar Ochhavlal Desai, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 292/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 159Section 250Section 68

Karnataka) held that section 159(2)(b) would require a separate notice to be issued under section 148 within time prescribed under section 149(1)(b) as against legal representatives directly and if such proceedings are initiated beyond time prescribed under section 149(1)(b), such proceedings would

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kundan Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4493/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 68

judgment and order dated 20/02/2024. Otherwise also, in view of the time limit of issuance of notice u/s 148A has been provided in Section 149(1)(b) as existed prior to 01/04/2022 was three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The said provision reads as under:- “(b