Section 150(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.283

Section 150(1) falls under section 150 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 283 (Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 283 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 150(1) is Sonic Biochem Extractions (P.) Ltd. v. ITO ( (25 Taxmann.com 25), cited in 63 of the 98 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 150(1)

Sonic Biochem Extractions (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (
25 Taxmann.com 25 · 2012 · ITAT
63
citing judgments

Prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. on October 15, 2011, the purchase of off-the-shelf software was not subject to TDS, and therefore, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) or 40(a)(ia) could be made.

CIT v. Foramer Finance
251 ITR 416 · 2001 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Reopening assessments is permissible after four years if there was an escapement of income due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, even if the initial assessment involved a change of opinion.

United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. 258 ITR 317 (Del), DCIT v. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd.
167 Taxmann.com 533 · 2024 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the reassessment notice is issued without the necessary sanction from the specified authority as mandated by Section 151. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the reasons recorded for reassessment before granting approval.

CSC Technology Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. ADIT
19 Taxmann.com 123 · 2012 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Income is taxable in India if it accrues in India, irrespective of whether it contains a profit element. Taxability of royalty or fees for technical services (FTS) is determined based on their arising in India and payment to a resident of a contracting state under a DTAA.

(1) CIT v. Premier Mills
296 ITR 157 · 2008 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Reopening an assessment under section 148 beyond four years from the relevant assessment year, following an assessment under section 143(3), is only valid if there's a proven failure by the assessee to disclose all material facts. The reassessment cannot be sustained if material facts were available during the original assessment or if it's based on a mere change of opinion.

ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. v. CIT
296 ITR 603 · 2008 · High Court
9
citing judgments
Duli Chand Singhania v. Asstt. CIT
136 Taxmann 725 · 2004 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Bhot Industries Ltd V/s ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bomb.), (vii) CIT (Addl) v. IFCI
296 ITR 573 · 2008 · High Court
8
citing judgments
A.B. Parikh v. ITO
203 ITR 186 · 1993 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Caprihans India Ltd. v. Tarun Seem, Deputy CIT
266 ITR 566 · 2004 · High Court
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 150(1)

Mecons Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Kol, Kolkata, West Bengal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2396/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2396/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Mecons Commotrade Private Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-4(2), Kolkata 211, Eastern Building, 19, Mukherjee Road, Kolkata Pan No. : Aabcm 7696 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Yash Baid, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27.09.2024 In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069178720(1) For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri Yash Baid, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Smt. Madhumita Das, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was The Submission By The Ld. Ar That The Issue Relates To Reopening Of The Assessment By Issuance Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act. It Was The Submission That A Notice Has Been Alleged To Have Been Issued U/S.148 Of The Act On 31.03.2016. It Was The Submission That Such Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Has Not Been Served On The Assessee. When This Was Put To The Ld. Sr. Dr, The Paper Book Has Been Filed Containing 08 Pages, Which Read As Follows :-

For Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 282

Shah Brothers, Chaibasa vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, Revenue's appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 275/RAN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.275/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shah Brothers, Chaibasa……...................…...........................……….……Appellant Sadar Bazar, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201. [Pan: Aazfs7498F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,04,03,980/- For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.102.108 Accepting The Said Returned Income. Subsequently, Based On Information Received From Dcit, Cc-1(3), Mumbai, It Was Alleged That The Said Assessee Had Claimed A Bogus Contract Expenses Of Rs.2,69,14,526/- In Lieu Of The Bogus Work Order To M/S Pandhe Infracons Pvt. Ltd. During The F.Y 2015-16 Without Any Actual Work Had Been Performed. The Revenue Relied Upon Search Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Conducted On M/S

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 250Section 251