Which cases are most cited on Section 151(2)?

V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. v. DCIT (340 ITR 310) — 31 citing judgments; Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT (348 ITR 325) — 29 citing judgments; Mercury Travels Limited. Vis. Dy. CIT(258 ITR 533) (Cal) (d) JSRS Udyog Limited & Ors. v. ITO ( (361 ITR 160) — 7 citing judgments; Addl. CIT v. Gurshant Rotary Compressor Ltd. (15 DTR 429) — 4 citing judgments; Assistant CIT & Anr (2008) 305 ITR 339(Mad) (vi) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (83 DTR 132) — 4 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 151(2)?

BharatTax indexes 137 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.284

Section 151(2) falls under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 284 (Sanction for issue of notice) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 284 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 151(2) is V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. v. DCIT (340 ITR 310), cited in 31 of the 137 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 151(2)

V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. v. DCIT

340 ITR 310 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Before initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147, the Assessing Officer must possess 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. This 'reason to believe' requires tangible material, a nexus to the escaped income, and an application of the Assessing Officer's mind.

Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT

348 ITR 325 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

The duty to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, fully and truly, is confined by Explanation 1 to the relevant section. This principle applies across various provisions of the Income-tax Act.

Mercury Travels Limited. Vis. Dy. CIT(258 ITR 533) (Cal) (d) JSRS Udyog Limited & Ors. v. ITO (

361 ITR 160 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Addl. CIT v. Gurshant Rotary Compressor Ltd.

15 DTR 429 · Reported

citing judgments

Assistant CIT & Anr (2008) 305 ITR 339(Mad) (vi) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT

83 DTR 132 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Principal Commissioner of the Income-tax-3 v. Anthony John Pereira

115 Taxmann.com 368 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

OLA. (ii) Tata Communications Transformation Services Rajebahadur Madhusudan Trimbak & Ors. v. ACIT

443 ITR 49 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 151(2)

Sh. Raghubir Prasad, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 878/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Sh. Raghubir Prasad, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ak-15, Shalimar Bagh, Ward-19(1), Delhi-110088 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapp1094K Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 124(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 246Section 68

Nirmal Handloom House (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 804/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2006-07 Nirmal Handloom House (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 18(3) ¾, Furniture Block New Delhi Kirti Nagar New Delhi 110 015 Pan: Aaacn 06781 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Udaibir Singh Kochar, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr.D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Udaibir Singh Kochar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 15(2)Section 151Section 292B

Purse Holdings India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4717/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 147

Praful Chandaria, Mumbai vs. ADIT )It) 1(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4313/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 147

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Supriya Suhas Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7468/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: S/ Shri Mihir Nani Wadekar /Neelabh ShreeshFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 254(1)Section 40

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sng Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Shri Hari Ram Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result consequently the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5111/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Hari Ram Gupta, Ito, C/O. M/S. Avc & Co., Ca, Ward-25(1), Vs. 5C/9, Iind Floor, Opp. Liberty Cinema, New New Delhi Rohtak Road, Delhi Pan:Aaipg5121E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mani, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Sehrawat Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 665/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Damayanti Ramesh Gada, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 3871/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Me, The Ld. Representative For The Assessee Has Made Two Fold Arguments. Firstly, According To Him, The Initiation Of Proceedings Under Section 147/148 Of The Act By Issuance Of Notice Was Bad In Law And, Therefore, The Impugned Assessment Was Liable To Be Quashed. Secondly, It Has Been Also Contended That On Facts, The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Not Sustainable.

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

M/S. Limelight Towers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 Limelight Towers (P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, F-8, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacl2094C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca. Respondent By : Sh. Yatendra Singh Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Vi, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Wrong, Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Should Have Allowed The Appeal As The Assessment Completed U/S 147 On The Basis Of Reopening By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Was Wrong & Bad Both In Law & On Facts. 3. That Both Cit (Appeals) & Assessing Officer Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs 10,50,000/-In Total Income Treating The Share Application Money As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of I.T Act 1961 In Respect To The Following Shareholders: I. Pista Devi , C-277/3 Gali No 13 Bhajan Pura, Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Yatendra Singh Singh, Sr DR

Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Punjab Metal Store, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1512/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 148

Radhey Shyam & Co., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1429/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal :Asstt. Yrs: 2006-07 Radhey Shyam & Co., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Prop. Radhey Shyam, Ward-39(3), New Delhi. 5645, Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Pan: Abhps 9513 Q ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ved Jain Fca Respondent By : Shri P. Dam Kanunjna Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2015. Date Of Order : 30/11/2015. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153A

M/S. Perfect Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 387/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2004-05 Perfect Capital Services Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 14(2) C/O Rra Taxindia New Delhi D 28, South Ex. New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Aaacp 1488 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148