“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)

Bysol Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5898/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

relevant Assessment Year. Three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2017-18 lapsed on 31.03.2021. As per section 149(1)(b) of the Act (new regime), re-assessment proceedings could have been initiated after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year only

M/S Sheetal Clothing Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5825/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151Section 68

Peda Subba Rao Unnam, Addanki vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1664/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 69A

barred by limitation, since the last date for issuing the said notice is 31-03-2022 only as per the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act and hence the impugned assessment order dt. 28-11-2023 is bad-in-law and is liable to be quashed ... taken certain legal grounds in light of notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 09.04.2022 and also the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, and argued that, the said notice is beyond the time limit provided under the Act and consequently the assessment order

Vasuki Katakam, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

ITA 1327/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1327/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: CA Hari AgarwalFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 64Section 69A

Learned Assessing officer. Since the alleged escapement of income is only Rs.38,26,100/-, which is below the Rs.50 lakh limit prescribed in section 149(1)(b) (as substituted by Finance Act, 2021), the reopening initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is not valid ... relevant assessment year represents information available with the Assessing Officer which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 3. Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 is reproduced as under: 'No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (b) if three

Stream Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1936/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 250

1), Kolkata. 2. For That Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the notice under Section 148 is barred by limitation in accordance with Section 149(1)(b) of ITA No.: 1936/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Stream Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. the Income Tax Act, which permits issuance beyond the period ... more. No such material was available in the present case. Trading in options and derivative contracts do not constitute "assets" as defined under Section 149(1)(b), and accordingly, the limitation period for reopening applies without exception. 3. For That Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the notice under Section

Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana (HUF), Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3)(1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5485/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Jain and Shobit MishraFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

relevant assessment year i.e., AY 2013- 14. According to the assessee, it is contrary to the mandate of the first proviso below section 149(1)(b) and therefore is invalid, bad in law and leading the impugned assessment proceedings as well as the impugned assessment order bad in law, liable ... regime. Thus, first proviso to section 149 under the new regime limits the retrospective operation to protect the interest of assessee. Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime provided a time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year for issuing notice under Section

Jagmohan Singh Bedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(1), Delhi

ITA 5068/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

stated that quantum of income which had escaped assessment was four lakhs and time limit for current proceedings was covered under section 149(1)(b) After approval was granted by Principal Commissioner, order under section 148A(d) was passed and reopening notice was issued on 20-4-2023 Assessee challenged

Jagmohan Singh Bedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(1), Delhi

ITA 5067/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Thirumoorthy Revathi, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 3188/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3188/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 250Section 69A

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. 47. **** 48. Notices have to be judged according to the law existing on the date the notice is issued. Section ... under the new regime will be applicable. The three year time limit will expire on 31 March 2022. 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist

A.C..I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6227/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

used to circumvent the statutory bar limitation where the earlier appellate order did not concern AY 2003-04. Since limitation under section 149(1)(b) expired on 31.03.2010, the reassessment initiated on 30.03.2019 was held to be invalid and void ab initio, and therefore, the additions were deleted.It was stated

A.C.I.T. Circle-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Awadhnarayan Laxminarayan Singh, Mumbai

ITA 6226/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 150(1)

Diamond Tradecom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5850/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Diamond Tradecom Private Limited Ito,Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai Shop No. 1, Shiv Ganga Chs Ltd., Vs Room No. 147B, Aayakar Bhavan, Ram Kuwar Thakur Road, M.K. Road, Dahisar (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400068. [Pan No. Aaccd8131A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69A

itself invalid. Further, the escaped income and the assessed income is admittedly less than Rs. 50.00 lakhs, therefore, the case falls in section 149(1)(b), hence, the assessment order is also bad in law. Thus, the assesse succeeded on both the legal plea. Considering the fact that I have

Prakash Reddy Vatti, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1806/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Vatti Prakash Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 018. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Telangana. Pin – 500 017. Pan Aaspv8120C Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca A Vamseedhar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA A VamseedharFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 144B(7)(vii)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 250(6)Section 69A

quashed. 2. That the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period of six years prescribed under the erstwhile Section 149(1)(b), and the extended ten-year period introduced by Finance Act, 2021 cannot be applied retrospectively to AY 2015-16, as held in Hexaware Technologies ... ACIT (2024). The alleged escaped income addition of Rs.25.27 lakh falls below the Rs.50 lakh thresholds required to sustain jurisdiction under Section 149(1)(b), and therefore, the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. 3. That the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in relying solely on the "Insight Portal

Inuus Infrastructure(P) Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4617/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 250

escaped assessment amounting to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year in view of provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. 3.6. That notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued based on factually incorrect assumptions and presumptions and therefore ... 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

Sunita Tuli, Pathankot vs. ITO Ward-1, Pathankot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 603/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

provided fresh evidence, “the reopening on 31.03.2021 (within six years from the end of A.Y. 2014-15) is within the limitation period under section 149(1)(b) of the Act”, as applicable for A.Y. 2014-15. 11. The ld. DR, with reference to furnishing of gist of reasons recorded, argued

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,

ITA 1669/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

provided fresh evidence, “the reopening on 31.03.2021 (within six years from the end of A.Y. 2014-15) is within the limitation period under section 149(1)(b) of the Act”, as applicable for A._Y. 2014-15. 11. The Id. DR, with reference to furnishing of gist of reasons recorded, argued

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

provided fresh evidence, “the reopening on 31.03.2021 (within six years from the end of A.Y. 2014-15) is within the limitation period under section 149(1)(b) of the Act", as applicable for A.Y. 2014-15. 11. The Id. DR, with reference to furnishing of gist of reasons recorded, argued

Lalit Kumar, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6304/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 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

Diamond Tradecom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5805/MUM/2025[A.Y. 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankardiamond Tradecom V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Private Limited बनाम 12(2)(1), Room No. 147B, Shop No.1, Shiv Ganga Chs Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Ltd., Ram Kuwar Thakur Mumbai – 400020, Road, Dahisar (East), Maharashtra Mumbai – 400 068, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd8131A Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed,ARFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

time barred being issued beyond the lapse of 6 years from the end of Assessment year 2015-16 as per proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed