This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-For AY 2014-15, no notice under section 148 could be issued on or after 1-4-2021 in view of the first proviso to section 149; reopening notice issued on 31-7-2022 was therefore barred by limitation. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), TOLA, Art. 226]

Labh Investment v. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 628 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-limitation period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16 expired on 31-3-2022, notice under section 148 issued on 30-7-2022 was barred by limitation and proceedings under sections 148A and 147 were quashed. [S. 147, 148,148A(d), 149(1)(b), Art. 226]

120 Media Collective (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 331 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Order under section 148A(d) quashed-Reassessment order based on such order could not survive-Reassessment order quashed.[S.148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Arunkumar Mahabirprasad Jatia v. ACIT [2025] 180 taxmann.com 102 (Bom)(HC) Editorial : SLP of the revenue was dismissed on account of a delay of 429 days, ACIT v. Arunkumar Mahabirprasad Jatia (2026) 308 Taxman 157 (SC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Insolvency proceedings-Resolution Plan approved by NCLT-Revenue having failed to file claim during CIRP-Past claims extinguished-Reassessment proceedings quashed.[S. 148,148A(b), 148A(d), IBC, S. 31, Art. 226]

Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [2025] 180 taxmann.com 509 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Interim stay granted by High Court-Strictures-Adjustment of refund-Where High Court by virtue of ad-interim order stayed notice under section 148, assessment order, and restrained revenue from taking further steps, Assessing Officer had no authority to treat stayed notice as one under section 148A(b) or to pass an order under section 148A(d)-Adjustment of refund against stayed demand was also impermissible, and revenue was directed to deposit adjusted amount in court [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 220, Art. 226]

Dominion Diamond (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 179 taxmann.com 508 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice issued to a dead person is null and void-Notices and consequential order were quashed. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 159, Art. 226]

Neena Jatin Shah v. ITO [2025] 179 taxmann.com 498 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Approved resolution plan under IBC-Reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2020-21, which did not form part of the approved resolution plan, were to be quashed.[S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S.31, 238, Art. 226]

V Hotels Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 177 taxmann.com 507 (Bom) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Approval of resolution plan under IBC-The notice issued under Section 148, both dated 30-6-2025, as well as consequential orders/notices, were quashed and set aside. [S.148, 148A(b), 148A(d), The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S.31, 238, Art. 226]

Swan Defence and Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 177 taxmann.com 467 (Bom) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Broken period interest on purchase of HTM securities-Pendency before the Supreme Court-Reassessment notice and consequential orders were quashed.[S.37(1), 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Bank of India v. ACIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Agricultural land-Land beyond 8 km from municipality-Not a capital asset-Reopening without verification is invalid.[S. 2(14)(iii), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Hrishikesh v. PCIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 1062 (Bom) (HC)