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-Notice under section 148 issued beyond the period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2014-15 is barred by limitation-SLP of the revenue dismissed.[S. 148, Art. 136]

ACIT v. Avinash Kumar (2026) 309 Taxman 167 (SC) Editorial: Avinash Kumar v. ACIT (2026) 182 taxmann.com 320 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Notice under section 148 issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed-SLP of revenue delayed by 320 days-SLP dismissed on account of delay. [S. 148, Art. 136]

CCIT v. Sheetal International (P.) Ltd. (2026) 309 Taxman 168 (SC) Editorial: Sheetal International (P.) Ltd v. CCIT (2025) 302 Taxman 271 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under section 148 is beyond the period of six years from the end of Assessment Year 2016-17; therefore, the same is time-barred; SLP dismissed on account of delay of 309 days and also on merits. [S. 148, Art, 136]

CCIT v. Gupta and Company (P.) Ltd. (2026) 309 Taxman 413 (SC) Editorial : . Gupta and Company (P.) Ltd v .CCIT(2026) 182 taxmann.com 579 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-The statutory six-year period for reopening expired on 31-03-2021; a notice issued under section 148 on 30-08-2024 was barred by limitation and therefore without jurisdiction; SLP of the revenue dismissed on account of delay of 327 days and also on merits. [S. 147, 148A, Art. 136]

ITO v. Kalpana Buildmart (P.) Ltd. (2026) 309 Taxman 416 (SC) Editorial: Kalpana Buildmart (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2026] 183 taxmann.com 321 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Audit objection-Review/change of opinion on the same material, which is impermissible-Notice and consequential orders were set aside-Notice issued under section 148 on 31-3-2023 was beyond four-year limitation under first proviso to section 149 as applicable, so extended six-year period did not apply, rendering such notice and subsequent proceedings invalid and liable to be quashed. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d),149, Art . 226]

Sapphire Foods India Ltd v. ACIT [2026] 309 Taxman 467 / 486 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Investigation Wing-Unexplained moneys-Reassessment is valid where reopening is based on fresh tangible material received subsequently, and therefore does not amount to a change of opinion, even if the issue was examined in the original scrutiny assessment. [S.69A, 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Mark Steels Ltd. v. ACIT (2026) 309 Taxman 62 (Cal.) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Information from Investigation Wing-At the section 148A stage, furnishing information suggesting escapement of income is sufficient; non-supply of the complete underlying material does not vitiate the notice. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

MHJ Metaltechs (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2026) 309 Taxman 420 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Order under section 148A (3) was passed on a ground not forming part of notice issued under section 148A (1)-Notice issued under section 148 pursuant to such order passed under section 148A (3) of the Act is bad in law. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d),148A(3), Art . 226]

Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd. v. UOI (2026) 309 Taxman 181 (Cal)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Dividend received from mutual funds-Reopening of assessment cannot be sustained when it is based solely on third-party survey findings, without any tangible material linking the assessee to the alleged sham transactions. [S. 10(35), 133A, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Mukundbhai Manubhai Patel v. Asstt. CIT (2026) 309 Taxman 251 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Cash credits-Purchase and sales-The assessee had dealt with information supplied to it by the revenue and had meticulously satisfied the data by comparing it with books of account-Reassessment notice and consequential orders were quashed. [S. 68, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

R.D. Diamond v. ITO [2026] 309 Taxman 136 (Guj)(HC)