Which cases are most cited on Section 145B?

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills (296 ITR 238) — 180 citing judgments; Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others in CWP No. 15506 of 2013; Shri Puneet Singh vs. CIT (110 Taxmann.com 116) — 83 citing judgments; Sunder v. UOI19. 19 (7 SCC 211) — 56 citing judgments; Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (1 SCC 262) — 6 citing judgments; 849 (Guj.). K. V. Moosa Koya and Co. vs. ITO: 175 ITR 120 (Ker.), CIT v. Mysore Sugar Company Limited (248 ITR 614) — 4 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 145B?

BharatTax indexes 55 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 145B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 145B of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 145B of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills (296 ITR 238) is the decision most relied on for Section 145B, cited in 180 judgments. A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.278

Section 145B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 278 (Taxability of certain income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 278 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 145B is CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills (296 ITR 238), cited in 180 of the 55 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 145B

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills

296 ITR 238 · 2008 · High Court

180

citing judgments

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others in CWP No. 15506 of 2013; Shri Puneet Singh vs. CIT

110 Taxmann.com 116 · 2019 · Reported

citing judgments

Interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation from compulsory acquisition of land is taxable under the head 'Income from other sources' in the year of receipt, as per the amended provisions, with a 50% deduction available under section 57(iv).

Sunder v. UOI19. 19

7 SCC 211 · 2001 · Reported

citing judgments

Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, includes interest on statutory solatium, treating solatium as an integral part of compensation. For income tax, interest on delayed compensation under the LAA is taxed as capital gains, not as 'interest' under Section 2(28A), and qualifies for Section 10(37) exemption if the acquired land is agricultural.

Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat

1 SCC 262 · 1991 · Reported

citing judgments

849 (Guj.). K. V. Moosa Koya and Co. vs. ITO: 175 ITR 120 (Ker.), CIT v. Mysore Sugar Company Limited

248 ITR 614 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

Limited, (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC). 48. New Friends Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.

327 ITR 39 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 145B

Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Dudhagara, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 738/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Income Tax Officer Dudhagara, It-Office, New Aayakar बनाम/ 3/4,Sardar Soc Corner, Vs. Bhawan, Vatiaka, Rajkot, Nr.Rameshwar Wadi, Nehrunagar Ito Ward 3(1)(1), Rajkot, Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-361012 Rajkot, Gujarat-361012 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bzbpd2158R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Pravin Sinha, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am : Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.07.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Dated 22.11.2019. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly. The Ld. Counsel Adverted Our Attention To The Affidavit Filed In This Regard Citing Reasons For Condonation Of Delay & Urged For A Benign View

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Sinha, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

Kartar Singh Through Legal Heir Satnam Singh, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Sirsa, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1546/CHANDI/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A and Shri Harithik Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Balkar Singh, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Sirsa, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1545/CHANDI/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A and Shri Harithik Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 145BSection 147Section 148Section 28Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viii)

Muktaben Valjibhai Sakariya, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 534/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 ] Muktaben Valjibhai Sakariya, Income Tax Officer 1(2)(1), बनाम/ At-Khajuri Gundala, Ta.-Jetpur, It-Office, New Aayakar Vs. Dist.-Rajkot, Gujarat-360370 Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001, "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Geyps9093K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2026

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

Nohar Chand, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Patiala

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 397/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 154

Balkar Singh, Haryana vs. ITO. Ward-1, Sirsa, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1844/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Observing That In The Present Case There Was A Mistake Apparent From Record In The Original Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Read With Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act Passed On 09.01.2021. The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Upholding The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer & The Hence The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)

Salochana Garg, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 441/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 154

Sh. Sudershan Kumar Garg, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 217/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 154

Sat Pal Garg, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 199/CHANDI/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jul 2026AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 154

Pala Ram, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward 1, Fatehabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 612/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 154

Jasmer Singh HUF, Chandigarh vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 37/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 154

Jasmer Singh HUF, Chandigarh vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 36/CHANDI/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 154

Sadhu Singh, Kalka vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed

ITA 390/CHANDI/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 367/Chd/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Baldev Singh, The Ito, S/O Shri Inder Singh, Vs Ward-1, Sector 2, Manakpur Devi Lal, Panchkula. Pinjore. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ctdps7650C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 390/Chd/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Virtual Hearing) Shri Sadhu Singh, The Ito, Village – Manakpur Nanak Chand, Vs Sector 2, Po-Pinjore, Kalka (Panchkula ) Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bgvps4754B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 145BSection 148Section 151Section 2Section 28Section 37Section 4Section 56

Baldev Singh, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed

ITA 367/CHANDI/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 145BSection 148Section 151Section 2Section 28Section 37Section 4Section 56

Mohamed Enayat Bhaopalwala, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Taxation Ward 1 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 9189/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrizwana Mohamed Bhopalwala Vs. Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 1 (2) (1) Individual Room 530D, 5Th Floor, Kautilya 124/125, Ajay Apartment, 16, Bhavan Bandra (East) Mumbai Hansraj Lane Byc, Mumbai-400093. 400051. Pan/Gir No: Aafpb2086G (Appellant) (Respondent) Mohamed Enayat Bhopalwala Vs. Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 1 (2) (1) Individual Room 530D, 5Th Floor, Kautilya 124/125, Ajay Apartment, 16, Bhavan Bandra (East) Mumbai Hansraj Lane Byc, Mumbai-400093. 400051. Pan/Gir No: Aenpb4895D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145BSection 263Section 56(2)(x)

Rizwana Mohammed Bhopalwala, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Taxation Ward 1 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 9188/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145BSection 263Section 56(2)(x)

Karnail Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1521/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1521/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karnail Singh, The Ito, House No. 115, Sector 41-D, Vs Ward 2(1), Badheri, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aiaps7638G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None. Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 145B(1)Section 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57