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

Sikshya 'O' Anusandhan, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 138/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 Sikshya Sikshya ‘O’ ‘O’ Vs. Pr. Cit (Exemption), Pr. Cit (Exemption), Anusandhan, 224, Dharma Anusandhan, 224, Dharma Hyderabad Hyderabad Vihar, Vihar, Khandagiri, Khandagiri, S.O. S.O. Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabts 1525 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit (Exemption), Hyderabad U/S.263 Of The Act (Exemption), Hyderabad U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 28.3.2023 In Appeal 28.3.2023 In Appeal No.Cit(Exemption), Hyd At Bbn/Revision No.Cit(Exemption), Hyd At Bbn/Revision -263/100000454492/2023 263/100000454492/2023 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri K.K.Bal K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri D Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

Daitari Sahoo, Cuttack vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 34/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Daitari Sahoo, C/O Shree Daitari Sahoo, C/O Shree Vs. Pcit, Bhubaneswar Pcit, Bhubaneswar-1 Panchamukhi Panchamukhi Store, Store, Malgodown, Cuttack Malgodown, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aghps 3717 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Narahari Swain, Himanshu Jena & Narahari Swain, Himanshu Jena & P.K.Mishra, Advs Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Act Dated Dated 14.1.2022 In Revision No.Pcit, Bhubaneswar Pcit, Bhubaneswar-1/Revision-63/100000257488/2021 63/100000257488/2021 For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. S/Shri Narahari Swain, Himanshu Jena & P.K.Mishra, Advs S/Shri Narahari Swain, Himanshu Jena & P.K.Mishra, Advs S/Shri Narahari Swain, Himanshu Jena & P.K.Mishra, Advs Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ld Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Ld Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Narahari Swain, Himanshu Jena and Narahari Swain, Himanshu Jena and P.K.MFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C