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

Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 192/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 192/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Plot No. 3, Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Bommasandra Industrial Income Tax, Area, Circle 2 (1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 099. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aadcc6152H Appellant Respondent : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Carl Zeiss India" Or "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- Tax Officer, National Faceless Center, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Assessing Officer" Or The "Ld. Ao"), Dated 25 January 2022 For The Assessment Year ("Ay")

For Respondent: Shri Nageshwar Rao
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Velu, Chennai vs. Itd, NFAC

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 476/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.476/Chny/2023 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Velu, Nfac बनाम/ 23, Gangai Amman Koil Street, New Delhi. Vs. Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Acbpv-5244-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)– Ld.Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07-06-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 14-02-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 12-06-2021. 2. During Hearing, It Transpires That The Assessee Did Not Attend The Assessment Proceedings & Accordingly, Various Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Material On Record. The Position Remained The Same

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)– Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Take Solutions Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITTPA 43/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.43/Chny/2022 (िनधा2रणवष2 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Take Solutions Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 27, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 034. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabct-3684-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K. Prasanna (C.A) – Ld.Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palanikumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-06-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 26-07-2022 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (Drp) U/S 144C(5) Dated 08-06-2022. Since The Assessee Carried Out Certain International Transactions With Its Associated Enterprises (Ae), A Draft Order Was Passed U/S.144C On 28-09-2021 & International Transactions Were Subjected To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Before Ld.

For Appellant: Shri K. Prasanna (C.A) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITTPA 905/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 905/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Rmz Pinnacle, No. 15, Income-Tax, Commissariat Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 025. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Assessee By Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.07.2022 Passed By The Assessment Unit For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another 1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Framed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) & Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act) Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department ('Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Learned Ao') Dated July 27, 2022, To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law, Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92BSection 92C

Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Kanchipuram Cheenai vs. DCIT Dc 2(3), Chennnai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 523/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.523/Chny/2023 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S.Iljin Automotive Pvt.Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Dc Ii (3) Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. However, Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Returned Income Has Been Accepted & The Assessee Is Merely Assailing Charging Of Interest U/S 234A To 234D Which Is Consequential In Nature. 2. We Find That Though The Return Of Income Was Accepted U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Vide Order Dated 13-09-2021, The Amount Of Total Income Was Wrongly Picked Up In The Computation Sheet. Upon Further Appeal, Ld.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A