“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)

Dskn Jewellers, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(3), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1051/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmadskn Jewellers Vs. Ito C/O. Mr. Samar Kapoor, Adv. Ward – 46(3) Chamber No.E-523, Karkardooma New Delhi Court, Delhi-32 Pan No. Aahfd 2162 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 27Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Premji Bhuralal Gala, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on the validity of the re-opening u/s

ITA 3081/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Your Honors Should Have Been Filed Within 60 Days Of Receipt Of The Order Of Cxit(A) But The Same Could Not Be Done.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C ‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

Sudesh Taneja v. 2022 TaxPub(DT) 805 (Raj-HC) : (2022) 442 ITR 289 (Raj) holding that new time limits as per substituted section 149(1)(b) not to apply to notices time barred under old provisions The time limits for issuing notice for reassessment have been changed. The concept ... time barred prior to 1-4- 2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of section 149(1)(b) effective from 1-4-2021. Applying above judgment to the facts of the case it may be noted that time limit for issuing

Nikunj Kaushik Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 2919/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalnikunj Kaushik Shah, 201, Laxmi Palace Chsl, Vileparle (East), Mumbai- 400057, Pan: Apeps6446R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-32(1), R. No. 335, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kothari, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

erred in initiating reassessment proceedings after a period of four years from the end of the assessment year even though the requirement of section 149(1)(b) of the Act were not satisfied in the facts of the present case. 8) The Id. AO erred in reopening the assessment

M/S Citi Plaza, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 356/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 250

alongwith objection filed before the ld. AO against the jurisdiction for issuance of notice u/s 148 which is itself time barred as per section 149(1) (b) of the Act. The notice is supposed to within 31.3.2013 but it was served on 06.03.2014. 4.2 The ld. AR invited our attention ... record. Considering the argument first, we adjudicate the limitation for service of notice U/s 148 on dated 06/03/2014 by violation of section 149(1)(b) I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 22 Assessment Year: 2006-07 of the Act. The assessee had declared the primary fact accordingly assessment was completed

DCIT, CC-4, New Delhi vs. SMC Foods Road, Uttarpradesh

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2036/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Smc Foods Ltd, Central Circle-4, 4/654, Bomaji Road, New Delhi Saharanpur, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcs9564R

For Appellant: Shri. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Amitabh Kumar Singha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 150Section 153ASection 250Section 69C

taken up u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and that all the ingredients of proviso to section 147 and the provisions of section 149(1)(b) are fulfilled in the facts of this case.” 3. The ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT DR erred in holding that

Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

furnished to us there is no averment that the income likely to escape assessment is Rs.One lakh or more as mandated by section 149(1)(b), this makes the entire process of reopening bad in law and the oorder passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 would be a nullity

Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 1Section 144Section 148Section 274

Sultan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 29/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aascs 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ray, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

issued between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 , cannot be conducted by giving benefit of releaxation/extension under TOLA, 2020, and the time limit prescribed in Section 149(1)(b) (as substituted w.e.f. 01.04.2021) cannot be counted by giving such relaxation from 30.03.2020. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that in respect ... proceedings where the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is attracted , benefit of TOLA, 2020 will not be available to Revenue, or in other words, the relaxation law under TOLA, 2020 would not govern the time frame prescribed under the first proviso to Section 149 as inserted

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

that the 5 case was reopened for the impugned assessment year after four years but before six years. The Ld. AR referred to section 149(1)(b) of the Act wherein the reasons recorded for reopening should specify that there is an escapement of income above Rs.1 lakh ... this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has not mentioned or reopened the case in accordance with the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. In support of his contention that in the absence of anything in reasons recorded to suggest that the income chargeable

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Smt. Rani Hareram Sahani, Kovaya, Rajula, Dist. Amreli vs. The ACIT, Ward-2 (4), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 9/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

evident on record, the Life Insurance Premium is not Rs. 9,99,000/- but it is Rs. 99,900/- only. As per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, which prescribes the income escaped amount is Rupees one lakh or more is to be reopened for reassessment. Thus, we find

Smt. Rani Hareram Sahani, Kovaya, Rajula, Dist. Amreli vs. The ITO, Ward-3 (1) (4), Rajula, Dist. Amreli

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

ITA 148/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6670/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

dismissed by the learned CIT(A). 8. During the course of hearing, learned AR, inter-alia, submitted that there is no compliance of section 149(1)(b) of the Act in the reasons recorded by the AO. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative (‘learned DR’) submitted that no scrutiny ... amount of the income, which AO believes to have escaped assessment. In this regard, it is relevant to note the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, as it stood prior to its substitution by Finance Act 2021, which reads as under “Time limit for notice. 149. (1

Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1472/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

failure of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Further, learned AR submitted that there is no compliance of section 149(1)(b) of the Act in the reasons provided by the AO. 8. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative („learned DR‟) submitted that assessee has raised ... that the escaped assessment amounts to, or is likely to be Rs.1,00,000/- or more, to bring it within the ambit of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. It is based on the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner/Sanctioning Authority on application of mind can take

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6671/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

Pushpa Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(3), New Delhi

ITA 1521/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2011-12 Pushpa Khandelwal, Vs Ito, 686, Baratooti Chowk, Ward-63(3), Sadar Bazar, New Delhi-110006. New Delhi. Pan-Aahpk9178N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashok Khandelwal, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2021

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)(a)Section 54

within the period of limitation It submitted that no notice within the period of limitation as required under Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, within a period of six years from 31-3-2011 was issued for reopening the assessment, as the notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2018, issued

Karan Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “C” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R KUMAR