Section 148 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.280

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 280 (Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 280 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 148 is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 35,022 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 148

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

Judgments on Section 148

Multiventure Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Multiventure Estates Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Ito 10(2)(4) Shop No. 21, Anuradha Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Society, Irla Bridge, Next Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- To Fire Brigade Station, 400020. Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400058. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm0264N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri S. K. Mitra (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed For Ay 2008-09, Holding The Same To Be Not Maintainable & Invalid Ab Initio. A.Y.2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Mitra (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Rekhi Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

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

ITA 4675/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Rekhi Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 36, Sant Nagar, Central Circle-14, East Of Kailash, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr6025K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Rishabh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th June, 2018 Passed By The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 28Th September, 2010 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.17,71,540/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 25Th January, 2011. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Conducted In The Assessee Company & Its Group Concerns. In Response To Notice U/S 153A, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 9Th September, 2013 & Assessment U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act Was Completed Determining The Total Loss At Rs17,12,515/- Wherein Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.59,025/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Assessee Company. Subsequently

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14ASection 153A

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. Albert David Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. Albert David List P-7,Chowringhee 15, Chittaranjan Avenue, Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacca 3933 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rabin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 30-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 06.12.2016 Passed In Case No.1338/Cit(A)-4/Circle-10(1)/Kol/15-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue Raises Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal:- “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Allowing 30% Depreciation As Claimed By The Assessee Despite The Fact That The Claim Of The Assessee That It Was Manufacturing Iv Fluid Bottles & Disposable Syringe & Needles With The Help Of Plastics Moulds Identical With The Moulds Used In Rubber & Plastics Goods Factories Was Not Blocked By Any Materials Or Cogent Explanation? 2. Whether The Learned. Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Technically Similar Moulds Used In Rubber & Plastics Goods Factories Were Also

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)