“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)

Hyundai Transys Inc, Republic of Korea vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

received by the Appellant amounting to INR 3,908,249 is less than the threshold limit of INR 5,000,000 prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as amended vide Finance Act, 2021, read with CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 ... appellant amounting to Rs.39,08,249/- is less than the threshold limit of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) as amended vide Finance Act, 2021 read with CBDT Instruction No.01/2022, therefore, the case cannot

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(International Tax) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2751/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2751/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Shri Nishit Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)

basis of law which exists at the time when such a notice was issued, i.e., 28th July 2022. 22. As per the unamended Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, the outer time limit to issue a notice under section 148 was 6 years from the end of the relevant ... under section 148 could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the unamended Section 149(1)(b), i.e., as it stood prior to the Finance Act, 2021. Applicability of Section 149 to be seen qua the notice under section

Nisha Thomas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-Drp-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2764/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

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) of the Act, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2021, the notice cannot be issued even ... under the new provisions. 25. 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 of the Act. For the relevant assessment year, being Assessment Year 2015-2016, 6th year expired

Manoj Jain, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-29(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/KOL/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

case, has been issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as required under the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, constitutes a jurisdictional error on the part of the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a reference to a Division

M/S Arv Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3961/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Smt. Renu Jauhri (Am) I.T.A. No. 3961/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/S. Arv Enterprises Vs. Acit-22(1) 17, Vasant Villa 322, 3Rd Floor Jain Derasar Marg Pirmal Chambers S.V. Road, Santacruz Lalbaug, Parel West, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 054. 012. Pan : Aamfa4079M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Kothari Department By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of 05.07.2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri (Am) :-

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 68Section 69C

erred in initiating reassessment proceedings after a period of four years from the end of the assessment yea even though the requirement of section 149(1)(b) of the Act were not satisfied in the facts of the present case. 9) The learned ACIT erred in reopening the assessment

Sri Lakshmi Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd, Udupi vs. ITO Ward - 1 and Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 935/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2016-17 Sri Lakshmi Multipurpose Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd., Ward – 1&Tps, Udupi. Floor-1, Srihari Tower, Kanakadasa Road, Udupi-576 101. Pan – Aakcs 4571 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Poojary, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 .06.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Prakash Chand Yadavinstant Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 22/03/2024 In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2023- 24/1063170077(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Assessee A Cooperative Society, Could Not File Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year. Thereafter, On The Basis Of An Information, Revealing That Assessee Has Deposited An Amount Of Rs.4,24,10,051, Ao Issued Notice U/S 148A To The Assessee. The Ao, Page 2 Of 4 While Framing The Assessment, Observed That The Assessee Is Not Qualified For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act, Relying Upon The Judgment Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Citizen Co-Operative Society Reported In 397 The Ao Framed The Assessment & Made An Addition Of Rs.48,53,282/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 80P(2)(a)

that the income escaped is only 48,53,282/-, which figure is below the threshold limit of Rs 50 lakhs as provided in section 149(1(b). Ld Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the following cases, the proposition that ... canvassed by Sri.A Shankar 8. Perusal of the above judgments would show that Hon’ble High Court after analyzing the purport of section 149(1)(b) has clearly laid down that unless the escaped income is above Rs 50 lakhs no action beyond three years could be taken against

Income Tax Officer, Raisen vs. Late Sudha Agrawal Th. L/H Manmohan Agrawal, Raisen

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-

ITA 281/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniincome-Tax Officer, Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal, बनाम/ Raisen (L/H: Manmohan Agrawal) Vs. 19/1, Shreeji Enterprise, Near Sbi, Sagar Road, Yashwant Nagar, M.P. (Pan: Abfpa4355G) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 159Section 54F

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. 28. Also, no notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was ever issued to the petitioner during the period ... relevant assessment year is beyond the period prescribed and consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner are barred by limitation in accordance with Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. 29. In Smt. Sudha Prasad (supra) the petitioner had challenged the assessment order and demand notice only. Neither non-issuance

Krishnamoorthy Hariobhaskar, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1506/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1506/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Krishnamoorthy Haribhaskar, The Income Tax Officer, 35/11, Poochakkadu, 2Nd Street, Ward-2(1), Mangalam Road, Tirupur-641 604. Tirupur. [Pan: Abkph 9735 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S.LakshmiFor Respondent: Shri Praveen, JCIT

Section 139Section 148Section 148ASection 149

notice u/s.148 (as substituted by Finance Act, 2021) on or after 01.04.2021, if he could not have issued notice under the erstwhile predecessor section 149(1)(b) (as it stood prior to Finance Act, 2021) of the Act. In this case, the relevant assessment year ... section 149(1)(b) (as it stood prior to Finance Act, 2021) of the Act, the AO was precluded from issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on or after 31.03.2020; And in the present case, since, notice u/s.148 dated 27.03.2021, even if presumed to be notice u/s.148 of the Substituted

Jesudason Biji, Chennai vs. Office of Income Tax Officer Int. Taxn Ward1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 54ESection 54F

notice u/s.148 (as substituted by Finance Act, 2021) on or after 01.04.2021, if he could not have issued notice under the erstwhile predecessor section 149(1)(b) (as it stood prior to Finance Act, 2021) of the Act. In this case, the relevant assessment year ... section 149(1)(b) (as it stood prior to Finance Act, 2021) of the Act, the AO was precluded from issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on or after 31.03.2021; And in the present case, since, notice u/s.148 dated 30.06.2021, even if presumed to be notice u/s.148 of the Substituted

DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3600/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 4 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Years ('AYs'). 1.3 As per the unamended section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961, the reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 6 years from the end of the relevant AY if the income ... initiation of reassessment proceedings on 1st April, 2021, for any AY prior to AY 2018-19, the pre-conditions contained in the amended section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 were required to be fulfilled by the Income-tax Department ('Department'). 1.7 Further, before issuance of a notice

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3596/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3476/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3475/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 4 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Years (‘AYs'). 1.3 As per the unamended section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961, the reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 6 years from the end of the relevant AY if the income ... initiation of reassessment proceedings on 1st April, 2021, for any AY prior to AY 2018-19, the pre-conditions contained in the amended section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 were required to be fulfilled by the Income-tax Department (‘Department’). 1.7 Further, before issuance of a notice

Pushpa Ravindra Kodlikeri, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 615/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Kumar Rupavatiya

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.615/PUN./2024

Ritvik Sandeep Kolatkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 610/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Kumar Rupavatiya

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(a)Section 149(1)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)

involving sec.148 notice dated 3 ITA.No.610/PUN./2024 08.04.2022; holds the same as time barred u/sec.149(1) of the Act as follows : “25. 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 ... provides that up to Assessment Year 2021-2022 (period before the amendment), the period of limitation as prescribed in the erstwhile provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act would be applicable and only from Assessment Year 2022-2023, the period of ten years as provided in Section 149

Maya Milind Sirsath, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 33(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3562/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 69A

Therefore, the issue-in-dispute left before us in additional ground raised is whether the Assessing Officer has complied the conditions specified in section 149(1)(b) during relevant time. The relevant part of the provision is reproduced as under: “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued

Late Lodaya Navalbai Raichand by Legal Heir Shri. Sharad R Lodaya, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gadag

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on Ground nos

ITA 39/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, Advocate

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

name of the legal heir just before the completion of assessment proceeding on 27.12.2018 is also barred by time as per provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. The case law relied by the Ld.DR is distinguished on the ground that the assessment notice was issued

Arvind Dada Kolekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4137/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

reassessment beyond 3 years, since the alleged taxable income escaping assessment does not exceed the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act, thereby rendering the reopening time barred. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case ... reason that the income alleged to escaping assessment was much less than Rs. 50,00,000/- as per the condition precedent in Section 149(1)(b), whereas in the reasons recorded the ld. AO has alleged the amount escaping assessment was for sum of Rs.18,05,500/-. This fact

Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1912/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration, approval may kindly be granted to issue notice u/s 148 r.w provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2012-13.” (Varunesh Mishra) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-26(e), New Delhi

Kalyanasundaram Bharath Hari, Chittlapakkam, Chennai vs. ITO, Int. Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 54

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य