Section 144B of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.273

Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 273 (Faceless Assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 273 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 144B is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 of the 10,521 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 144B

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.
203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court
990
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal
469 ITR 46 · 2024 · Supreme Court
713
citing judgments

The legal fiction created by the Ashish Agarwal judgment stops the limitation clock for Section 148 notices from the date of the deemed notice. Orders issued without proper jurisdiction, or those inconsistent with statutory prescriptions, are a nullity, and there can be no waiver of such fundamental jurisdictional requirements.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT
67 ITR 84 · 1968 · Supreme Court
616
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT
99 ITR 375 · 1975 · High Court
543
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO
230 Taxmann 309 · 2015 · High Court
527
citing judgments

A cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if it is engaged in cooperative activities. It also clarifies the allowability of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income received from investments made in cooperative banks, after duly considering the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.

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.

Judgments on Section 144B

Temenos India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the Ground No

ITTPA 32/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 32/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Temenos India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner No.146, Sterling Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. Pan: Aaact 2612E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 11.06.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. It(Tp)A No.32/Chny/2024 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. It Is A Captive Service Provider Of Software Development Services For Banking Solutions To Its Ae, Temenos Ag. The International Transactions Of The Assessee Were Provision Of Software Development Services, Maintenance Fee Paid, Reimbursement Of Esop Costs, Sale Of Ip License & Recovery Of Expenses With The Main Activity Being Provisions Of Software Development Services.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Rathese Josphin Amala Jaya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(6), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2509/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2509/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mrs. Rathese Josphin Amala Jaya Ito बनाम/ 57/1, East Mada Street, Koyembedu Non-Corporate Ward-17(6), Vs. Chennai-600 107. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aoepj-5605-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Mathangi (Advocate)– Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 06-08-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 08-12-2023. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Various Additions To The Returned Income & Assessed The Income At Rs.117.01 Lacs. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same For Want Of Material Evidences From The Assessee. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi (Advocate)– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Fatehpur vs. AO (National Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 148/ALLD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. ShivangFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 2(30)Section 250Section 6(1)Section 69

Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Fatehpur vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 147/ALLD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. ShivangFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 2(30)Section 250Section 6(1)Section 69

Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Fatehpur vs. AO National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 139/ALLD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. ShivangFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 2(30)Section 250Section 6(1)Section 69

Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Fatehpur vs. AO National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 138/ALLD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. ShivangFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 2(30)Section 250Section 6(1)Section 69