SUPREME COURTMotor Accident Claims - Tax Returns Can Be Accepted To Determine Income Only If They Are Appropriately Produced : Supreme CourtCase name: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand.Case no.: SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018The Supreme Court, recently (on January 02), while deciding a motor accident compensation claim case, observed that monthly income could be fixed...
SUPREME COURT
Case name: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand.
Case no.: SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018
The Supreme Court, recently (on January 02), while deciding a motor accident compensation claim case, observed that monthly income could be fixed after taking into account the tax returns. However, the details of tax payment must be properly brought into evidence to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income.
The Bench of Justices C.T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol were deciding a batch of appeals preferred both by the insurer and the claimant. While the claimant prayed for the enhancement of compensation, the insurer pleaded for the reduction.
Reduction In Share Capital Amounts To Transfer Of Capital Asset Under Income Tax Act : Supreme Court
Case Name: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 & ANR v. M/S. JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 63 OF 2025
The Supreme Court (recently on January 02) reiterated that reduction in share capital is covered under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which talks about transfer of a capital asset. It explained that such reduction would come under the expression “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset” used in the provision.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said that this provision provides an inclusive definition of transfer, covering relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right.
'Badly Drafted Petition' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging TDS System Of Income Tax Act
Case title: Ashwini Upadhyay v Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) No. 20/2025
The Supreme Court today (January 24) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation challenging the provisions of the Income Tax Act which impose an obligation on private employers to deduct tax at source (TDS) on the salaries paid by them.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said that the petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay was "badly drafted" and asked him to approach the High Court.
Case title: VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA Vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20519 OF 2024
The Supreme Court on January 7 set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated March 21, 2017, through which the rejection to the compounding application of the Appellant for the assessment year 2013-2014, for having filed the belated income tax return, was upheld on the ground that only for the "first offence" compounding of offence is possible. Since the Appellant had filed delayed income tax for 2011-2012 and his compounding application was accepted, it now cannot be accepted.
However, the Supreme Court observed that the "first offence" is the offence committed prior to the show cause notice, which was the case here for both years.
Case Name: K KRISHNAMURTHY VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2411 OF 2025
The Supreme Court, while determining a tax matter, observed that the undisclosed income, under Section 271AAA(1) of the Income Tax Act, surrendered by the assessee during the search, is not sufficient to levy the penalty.
Case Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS VERSUS M/S INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 19528/2018
The Supreme Court reiterated that when a charitable trust registers under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) for income tax exemptions (under Sections 10 and 11), the tax authorities should check if the charity's proposed activities match its charitable goals, as stated in the Ananda Social case.
The Court, however, clarified that mere registration under Section 12-AA would not entitle a charitable trust to claim exemption under Sections 10 and 11 respectively of the Act, 1961, and the authorities can decline the grant of exemption if the materials produced by the trust does not seem convincing for grant of exemption.
Case Title: The Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution VERSUS B. Gunashekar & Another
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5200 OF 2025
In a significant ruling aimed at combating black money and tax evasion, the Supreme Court today (April 16) directed courts and registration authorities to report cash transactions exceeding ₹2 lakhs to the Income Tax Department.
The Court ruled that whenever any suit is filed claiming that a consideration of Rs. 2 Lacs or above is paid towards a transaction, then it becomes obligatory upon the Court to intimate the jurisdictional Income Tax Department for verification whether there's a violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).
Case : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Chandigarh vs V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 13205/2025
The Supreme Court recently advised that the Commissioners of Income Tax should not randomly remand matters in exercise of their revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely by saying that the Assessing Officer was required to do more inquiries.
The Court said that to remand matters on the ground of inadequate inquiry by the AO, the Commissioner must record “abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and prejudice caused to revenue” is necessary.
Case title: Case Title: Shital Fibers Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax (and connected cases)
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.14318 OF 2015
Answering a reference, the Supreme Court held that deductions under Sections 80-IA/80-IB of the Income Tax Act need not reduce the gross total income before computing deductions under other provisions like Section 80-HH for export profits.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih delivered the verdict while answering a reference after a matter was referred to the larger bench due to split verdict in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Micro Labs Limited (2015) on the issue of whether deductions claimed under Section 80-IA/80-IB (for industrial profits in certain categories) and Section 80-HHC (for export profits) could be cumulatively allowed.
Cause Title: HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 24) ruled that the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) is sufficient to attract tax liability for a foreign entity in India, even in the absence of exclusive possession of a fixed place of business. The Court clarified that temporary or shared use of premises, when combined with administrative or operational control, is adequate to establish a PE, thereby triggering income tax liability in India.
Holding so, the bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed Hyatt International's appeal against the Delhi High Court's order, which had held the company liable to pay income tax in India on income earned through its Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) with Asian Hotels Ltd. for 20 years, the operator of Hyatt's hotel business in India.
Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Timelimit For Assessments Under S.144C
Cause Title: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. VERSUS SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED
The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 8) delivered a split verdict on the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), governing the timeline for passing assessment orders by the Assessing Officer in cases involving eligible assessees, such as foreign companies and transfer pricing matters.
Justice BV Nagarathna ruled that Section 153(3)'s twelve-month cap still governs even in Section 144C proceedings, rendering the assessments time-barred. However, Justice SC Sharma held that the timelines in Section 144C operate independently of Section 153(3) and exclude its outer limit for DRP cases, stating that applying Section 153 could impact tax recovery.
Cause Title: VANDANA & ORS. VERSUS KESHAV & ORS.
The Supreme Court on Monday (Aug. 18) agreed to decide whether the income credited in an Indian bank account while working with a Foreign Entity would be exempted from the payment of Income Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961..
The issue arose before the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while hearing the appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) decision to deduct 30% towards tax liability while computing the compensation claim of the Appellant's deceased husband, who was employed with British Marine PLC, London as Merchant Navy Officer earning 3,200 USD monthly income.
Cause Title: VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR VERSUS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 28) imposed Rs. 2 Lakhs cost on Income Tax Department for 'grossly abusing its position' to continue a prosecution against an assessee alleging willful tax evasion.
The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's decision, which refused to quash the prosecution case initiated by the department. The Court criticized the department's action of launching the prosecution against the assessee in contrast to its own circulars, which allow launching the prosecution for tax evasion under Section 276C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) only after the penalty for concealment is confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Case : Pride Foramer S.A. v Commissioner of Income Tax
The Supreme Court has clarified that under the Income Tax Act, a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection within the country, even if it does not maintain a permanent office or physical establishment here.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in its judgment examined the scope of Sections 4, 5(2), and 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that the statute does not make it mandatory for a non-resident assessee to have a “permanent establishment” in India to be considered as carrying on business in the country. The Court explained that what determines tax liability is whether the income has accrued or arisen, directly or indirectly, through any business connection in India.
Cause Title: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL VERSUS SADHUMARGI SHANTKRANTI JAIN
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the registration of a trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which recognizes it as a charitable institution for income tax exemption purposes, is sufficient to entitle its donors to claim tax deduction benefits under Section 80G of the Act.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has issued notice on a petition filed by the Income Tax Department challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's ruling that once a charitable organization is registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot be denied approval under Section 80G(5) for providing tax deduction benefits to its donors, merely on the ground that it also undertakes religious activities.
Cause Title: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 SURAT VERSUS M. D. INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.
Rejection of an assessee's settlement application by the Income Tax Settlement Commission without offering settlement terms does not bar the assessee's right to challenge the assessment order on merits under the Income Tax Act, observed the Supreme Court.
"The stand of the Revenue that the assessee must give up his right to contest the assessment order on merits, if the settlement application is rejected without providing for terms of settlement, is misconceived and must be rejected.", a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said, dismissing the department's appeal.
Cause Title: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS THE HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD
The Supreme Court recently criticised the Income Tax Department for filing its Special Leave Petition after a delay of 524 days, observing that the Department, despite having an entire team of legal experts, failed to act on its own lawyers' advice and instead allowed time to be wasted in unnecessary and prolonged litigation.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Department's explanation for the massive delay, noting that "no one in the Department is taking care to shorten the process" for filing appeals within the statutory timeframe.
The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Income Tax Department for filing yet another Special Leave Petition (SLP) in a matter already settled by the Court, calling it a frivolous exercise that contributes to mounting pendency.
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing an SLP challenging a Karnataka High Court order on tax deduction at source (TDS) liability, an issue the Supreme Court had already decided last year in a case involving Vodafone Idea, holding that payments made to non-resident telecom operators were not liable for TDS.
Cause Title: NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10) held that any income earned by a statutory corporation outside its core activity of providing long-term finance for industrial, agricultural, or infrastructure development in India cannot qualify for the 40% deduction available under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”).
A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed National Cooperation Development Corporation's appeal, reiterating that only profits directly derived from long-term financing activities, with repayment periods of five years or more for supporting the agricultural sector, are eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act.
Cause Title: DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI. VERSUS M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD. (and connected case)
In a set-back to foreign companies doing business operations in India, the Supreme Court on Monday (December 15) held that all head office expenditure incurred by them outside India, whether common or exclusively for their Indian business operations, must be subjected to the statutory ceiling prescribed under Section 44C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby ruling out any claim for full deduction.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had upheld the grant of full deduction for “head office expenditure” incurred by the respondent non-resident assessees outside India in relation to their business operations in India.
Case Title – Sharp Business System Thr. Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-III N.D.
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 4072 of 2014
The Supreme Court has held that payment of non-compete fee does not result in acquisition of a capital asset or alteration of the profit-making structure of the business, and is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
“Thus non-compete fee only seeks to protect or enhance the profitability of the business, thereby facilitating the carrying on of the business more efficiently and profitably. Such payment neither results in creation of any new asset nor accretion to the profit earning apparatus of the payer. The enduring advantage, if any, by restricting a competitor in business, is not in the capital field”, the Court observed.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: CELL COM TELESERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Case no.: WRIT TAX NO. 278 OF 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that filing of Form 10-IC prior to filing of income tax return is not mandatory and the delay in filing the Form may be condoned in cases where “genuine hardship” is shown to exist.
Form 10-IC, under the Income Tax Act, is required to filed only if a Domestic Company chooses to pay tax at concessional rate of 22% under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act,1961. Section 115BAA provides that subject to the provisions of Chapter XII of the Income Tax Act, a domestic company may choose to compute its income tax at 22% for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2020 provided the conditions mentioned in Section 115BAA(2) are fulfilled.
Case Title: M/S Rai Wines Ras Bahar Colony v. The Commisssioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 395 of 2007
The Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that the findings of best assessment done by the authorities is perverse is on the assesee.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that “when a best assessment is done, it is for the assessee to bring on record the facts that may reveal that the findings are perverse in nature.”
Case Title: Mahesh Gautam v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 436 of 2012
The Allahabad High Court has held that notices under Section 148 and 282 of the Income tax Act, 1961 must be delivered to the assesee personally through speed post and not merely upon his address to complete service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
It held that presumption of sufficient service arises only when the notice is sent by registered post as in registered post the notice is delivered to the person it is addressed to. Highlighting the difference between registered post and speed post, the Court held that service will be deemed sufficient when sent through speed post only if it has been delivered to the addressee him/herself and not upon the address to a different person.
Case Title: U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited Versus Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.Of Revenue Thru.Secy.Andors
Case no.: WRIT - C No. - 16125 of 2018
While dealing with a writ petition for refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), the Allahabad High Court has held that when the documents for TDS are provided by the assesee, the Assessing Officer must process the refund and cannot delay payment of refund in genuine cases.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar held, “a taxpayer should not be left at the mercy of an Assessing Officer who chooses to delay the payment of genuine refunds. Furthermore, as long as the assessee is able to provide documents proving that tax has been deducted at source, the same has to be accepted by the Assessing Officer, who cannot insist that the amount match the figures in Form 26AS. It is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to verify the amounts provided by the assessee through the proof of Form 16A.”
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 77 of 2025
While hearing an appeal under S. 260A of the Income Tax Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot reject adjournment applications and pass ex-parte orders without recording reasons for such dismissal. It was held that if the Tribunal was allowed to do such a thing, it would hamper the right of the parties to a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
“While inordinate delays in judicial decision making is not healthy and expeditious disposal of the proceedings is a goal that all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities may pursue, at the same time, they may remain conscious of their non-negotiable commitment to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties before such judicial decision making is achieved,” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Bombay HC
Case Title: City Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 6076 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court stated that notice issued to a non-existing entity post-merger is a substantive illegality and not some procedural violation.
“we cannot condone the fundamental error in issuing the impugned notices against a non-existing company despite full knowledge of the merger. The impugned notices, which are non-est cannot be treated as “good” as urged on behalf of the department” stated the Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain.
Case Title: The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1041 OF 2012
The Bombay High Court stated that ITAT cannot overstep its authority by deciding on merits when it has already concluded an appeal was not maintainable.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “Once the ITAT concluded that the Appeal before it against the impugned communication/order was not “maintainable”, there was no question of the ITAT evaluating the impugned communication/order on its merits or making any observations or recording any findings regarding its validity or otherwise. Therefore, such observations and findings are without jurisdiction and should not have been made.”
Case title: Oxford University Press v. DCIT, Int. Tax Circle 3 (2)(2) & Ors.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.1894 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has made it clear that merely because the tax rate which is applicable on an assessee changes in future assessment years (AYs), is not a ground to initiate reassessment action against it for previous AYs, unless the 'jurisdictional parameters' of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are fulfilled.
A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain thus quashed the reassessment order passed against Oxford University Press, merely because its tax status was changed from 'resident' to 'non-resident', making it subject to a 40% tax rate instead of 30%.
Case title: Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. ITAT Pune Bench & Ors.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 17572 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court has disapproved of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal against an ex-parte order passed against a former employee of Pfizer Healthcare without providing him an opportunity of hearing.
Stating that ITAT cannot “perpetuate” the ex-parte order, a division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna directed the Tribunal to hear the employee de novo, so far as his prayer for the grant of exemption under section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned.
Case Title: Technova Imaging Systems Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 405 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court stated that amalgamated company can adjust written down of assets of amalgamating companies and claim depreciation without central government's approval. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik stated,
“The Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that in view of insertion of Section 72A in the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee (being the amalgamated company) not having obtained approval of the Central Government was not entitled to adjust the written down value of the assets of the amalgamating companies on the basis of depreciation actually allowed to them and to claim depreciation on such adjusted written down value of the assets of the amalgamating companies.”
Case Title: Macrotech Developers Limited vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2545 of 2016
Finding that the Petitioner had failed to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment of tax, the Bombay High Court ruled that the circuitous movement of funds through various companies located in tax havens had not been disclosed in the course of the original proceedings. The High Court therefore confirmed the reopening proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
A division bench of Justice Jitendra Jain and Justice M.S Sonak observed that “if based on subsequent information, there is a prima-facie material suggesting that the transaction of loan is nothing but the undisclosed funds of the Petitioner routed through various tax havens companies in the form of loan then the disclosure made in the course of the original assessment proceedings cannot be treated as full and true material disclosure for the purpose of the assessment”.
Bombay High Court Quashes NBW Issued Against Actor Arjun Rampal Over 2019 Tax Evasion Case
Case Title: Arjun Amarjeet Rampal vs Income Tax Department
Case no.: Writ Petition 2579 of 2025
The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside a 'non-bailable warrant' issued by the Ballard Pier Magistrate Court in the city against Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal in a 2019 Income Tax evasion case.
Vacation Court judge Justice Advait Sethna noted that the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Ballard Pier was 'cryptic' and passed 'without application of mind' as the non-bailable warrant was issued in a case pertaining to a 'bailable offence.'
Case Title: Bank of India v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-15, Mumbai
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.425 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee from RBI cannot be treated as 'interest' chargeable under Section 4 of Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that “the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee is not relatable in loan or advance given by the assessee to the RBI and therefore, the amount of subsidy can neither be treated as commitment charges nor discount on promissory notes on bill of exchange drawn or made in India.”
Case Title: Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1378 OF 2018
The Bombay High Court has asked the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide whether payment for transponder services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(Vi) of Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “the authorities have held the payment to constitute 'royalty' under the domestic law as well as under the Treaty, but by holding the said payment is towards 'royalty' under the Treaty, the revenue has relied upon the definition of 'process' under the domestic law. Therefore, to say that the revenue has only held against the Assessee on the ground of domestic law and not the Treaty is not correct.”
Case Title: Fcbulka Advertising Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1)
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.3442 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court stated that a breach of Article 265 of the constitution cannot be alleged or sustained based upon a tentative or inconclusive opinion formed by assessing officer.
The Division Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the communication dated 29 November 2018 is an order, it being like a preliminary, prima facie, or interlocutory order and not a final order, the Petitioner cannot base their claim on this communication to allege breach of Article 265 of the Constitution. The communication dated 29 November 2018 is based on preliminary verification and is subject to processing, and therefore, it is in the nature of a preliminary/prima facie/interlocutory order.”
Case Title: M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court stated that assessing officer do not have the jurisdiction to go behind net profit in profit and loss account except as per explanation to Section 115J Of Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik observed that “Section 115J of the 1961 Act mandates that in case of a company whose total income as computed under the provisions of the Act 1961 is less than 30% of the book profit, the total income chargeable to tax will be 30% of the book profit, as shown in the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act 1956, after certain adjustments.”
Case Title: M/s. Carona Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court stated that the assessee cannot be penalised under Section 271(1) (c) of income tax act for merely raising a plausible claim.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne opined that “the claim raised by the Assessee for claiming deduction in respect of the crystalised liability towards additional bonus was a plausible claim. Whether such claim is tenable in law or not is an altogether different issue. What is relevant to note is the position that the claim made by the Assessee can, by no stretch of imagination, be treated as malafide act of concealment of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.”
Case Title: Bajaj Auto Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.505 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court has stated that sales tax incentive under a government scheme for industrial promotion is a capital receipt, not taxable.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne were addressing the issue of whether an incentive received in sales tax liability under a Scheme formulated by the State Government would be on the capital account, exempt from taxation, or on the revenue account, liable for taxation.
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court stated that reassessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act beyond 4 years requires specific non-disclosure by assessee, not mere bald allegations.
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the reopening of assessment proceedings. This section gives discretion to the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment proceedings when he/she has reason to believe that some of the income has escaped assessment.
Case Title: M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: Income Tax Appeal No. 407 of 2003
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a provision for doubtful debts cannot be treated as either a "reserve" or a "provision for liability" under clauses (b) or (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus cannot be added back to the book profits for the purpose of minimum alternate tax (MAT). The Court accordingly overturned the addition of ₹2.49 crore made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing an appeal filed by M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd., which had made a provision for doubtful debts in its profit and loss account for the Assessment Year 1997–98.
Case Title: M/s. Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that insurance claim received on dead horses is capital receipt, not taxable as income under Section 41(1) Of Income Tax Act.
The bench opined that horses in respect of which the insurance claim was received were Assessee's capital assets and that therefore insurance receipt arising therefrom could only have been considered as capital receipt, not chargeable to tax.
Case Title: Krishnagopal B. Nangpal v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range – 3, Pune
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses, would qualify for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The issue before the bench was whether Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act allows the Assessee to set off the purchase cost of more than one residential units against the capital gains earned from sale of a single residential house.
Case Title: Pune Municipal Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Pune and Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.9551 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court held that Section 194C and Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act would not apply when TDR Certificates are issued in lieu of compensation.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla agreed with the assessee that the words “or by any other mode” appearing in Section 194C would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”. Similarly, in Section 194LA, the words “or by any other mode” would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”.
Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Doesn't Count As Service On Assessee: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.491 AND 492 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that serving order on chartered accountant doesn't count as service on assessee. The issue before the bench was whether the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal when served upon the Chartered Accountant is sufficient service and whether it can be construed as 'copy received by the assesse/applicant'.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta stated that the Chartered Accountant since is not also authorised specifically to accept copy of the order, cannot be said to be a recognised agent of the Assessee.
Case Title: Narendra I. Bhuva v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.681 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of vintage car taxable unless the assessee proves that the car was used as a personal asset.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that the capability of a car for personal use would not ipso facto lead to automatic presumption that every car would be personal effects for being excluded from capital assets of the Assessee.
Case Title: Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Raigad
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1139 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court held that interest on fixed deposits, TDS refund linked to business qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides tax incentives for businesses operating in certain sectors such as infrastructure, power, and telecommunications.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated that the placement of fixed deposits was imperative for the purpose of carrying on the eligible business of the assessee. The placement of fixed deposits is not for parking surplus funds which are lying idle. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the assessee had used these fixed deposits for purchasing cranes for the eligible business. There is a direct nexus between the fixed deposits and the eligible business of the assessee.
Case Title: Tivoli Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and another
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004
The Bombay High Court stated that the assessing officer (AO) can determine the annual value of the property higher than the municipal rateable value under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act.
The issue before Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was whether it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to determine annual value of the property for the purposes of taxation under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1960 higher than the rateable value determined under the Municipal laws.
Case Title: Molbio Diagnostics Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.142 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has stated that reassessment beyond 3 years is valid where bogus royalty expenses exceed Rs. 50 lakhs.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years, in the present case, where the alleged bogus royalty expenses exceeded 50 Lakhs.
Case Title: Classic Legends Pvt Ltd. v. Assessment Unit & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14748 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that a draft assessment order is not permissible under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act when the TPO (transfer pricing officer) makes no variation.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar stated that …..the assessee/petitioner can be stated to be an “eligible assessee” only if there is a case of variation referred to in the said sub-section 1 and which arises as a consequence of the order passed by the TPO under sub-section 3 of Section 92CA. It is an admitted position that there was no variation in the income of the assessee by virtue of the order of the TPO…
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2166 OF 2018
The Bombay High Court has held that payments to consultant doctors are not salary. Hence, TDS is deductible under section 194J and not under section 192 of the Income Tax Act.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated that there does not exist an employer-employee relationship between the assessee and consultant doctors, and the payments made to them by the assessee come under the purview of section 194J of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Archroma International (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.11226 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the dispute resolution panel (DRP) directions; assessment completed beyond Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time limit is invalid.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the mandate of Section 144 (C) (13) and also contrary to the directions given by the DRP in sub-section (5) of Section 144 (C) of the Act. The reason being, Section 144(C)(13) mandates that the Deputy Commissioner ought to complete the assessment in conformity with the direction of the DRP, that too within the strict timelines. Further, Section 144 C (10) makes a clear provision that the directions of the DRP are binding on the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Ramelex Private Ltd.
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot rely solely on Sales Tax Department Data for an income tax addition without granting cross-examination.
Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe stated that, "when the VAT assessment was pending adjudication, merely relying on the information of the Sales Tax Department without granting an opportunity to the Assessee to even cross-examine the hawala purchasers to confirm the purchases from them violated the basic facts of law amenating to unfairness and breach of the principles of natural justice in making the addition of Rs.2,05,74,750/- as bogus purchases in hands of the Assessee."
̌Case Title: Balaji Landmarks LLP Eartwhile v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 16638 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that the assessee should not be penalised for the delay in filing the return caused by the chartered accountant's belated advice. The bench noted that the delay is not due to any negligence on the part of the assessee, but to inadequate advice by the Chartered Accountant, a fact admitted by him in his affidavit.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar opined that the Petitioner ought not to be put to a considerable disadvantage as a result of belated advice given to it by the Chartered Accountant, especially when the issue that was being grappled with is fairly complex and for which there were no well-settled judicial precedents at the relevant time.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 11261 OF 2025
CASE TITLED: SAVITRIBAI PHULE SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, KAMLAPUR VS. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION (INVESTIGATION) PUNE & ORS.
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Charitable Trust “Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak” seeking quashing and setting aside of the Order passed by the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation (Investigation) Pune whereby the Trust/Petitioner's application for condonation of delay 509 days in filing its Form 9A for the Assessment Year 2022-23 was rejected.
Per Explanation below Section 11(7) of the Income Tax Act, 196, the Charitable Trusts were required to claim Application of Income on an “Actual Payment Basis”, incorporated after the Finance Act, 2022 from A.Y. 2022-2023 whereby the application of income was to be claimed on the basis of “Actual Payment Basis” and not “Accrual Basis”.
Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 32001 of 2025
Case Titled: Shabana Aijaz Khan Vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward- 3(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the reassessment notice did not follow the mandate that the Faceless Assessing Officer only has the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It was further stated that even international taxation matters could be made subject to the faceless regime.
A Division Bench comprising Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee, whereby the assessee challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice, on the ground that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(AO) violating the mandate of the reassessment notice to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer(AO).
Case Title: Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 2033 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has set aside a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against a company that had ceased to exist due to conversion into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), holding that reopening of assessment against a non-existent entity is “illegal and bad-in-law”.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ petition filed by Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP (successor of Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.), challenging the reassessment proceedings.
Case Title: Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Charity Fund Vs. Income Tax, Officer (Exemption)
Case No. Writ Petition No. 4941 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 & 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated to re-open issues that were already scrutinized and accepted during the original assessment, observing that a mere change of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer does not constitute reason to believe nor permit reassessment.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, while deciding a writ petition filed by the assessee, quashed the reassessment notice under Section 148, which alleged that the assessee failed to specify the purpose of income accumulation under Section 11(2) in Form 10. The Bench stated that in the present case, all the material particulars and documents were before the Assessing Officer when the original assessment was conducted. There is no new material before the Revenue, nor are there any new facts or information to justify the reopening of the assessment.
Case Title: Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 Vs. Citron Infraprojects Limited AADCC3733C
Case No: Income Tax Appeal(L) No. 34357 of 2024 and connected matters
The Bombay High Court has held that prior approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is not a mere technical or procedural formality, and that mechanical, en masse sanction without application of mind vitiates the entire assessment under Section 153A.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while deciding a batch of over 60 Income Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue led by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4, dismissed the appeals at the admission stage, affirming the ITAT's ruling which had set aside assessments framed against the assesses, Citron Infra projects Limited, Helios Mercantile Limited, SVP Global Textiles Limited, Shri Vallabh Pittie South West Industries, and other connected entities.
Case Title: Accost Media LLP Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition(L) No. 35160 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period for filing a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act begins when the assessee receives the ITAT order, and not merely from the date on which the order is passed. The Court ruled that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had completely misdirected itself in rejecting a rectification plea by Accost Media LLP as time-barred.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar delivered the ruling while hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee Accost Media Ltd., challenging the order of the ITAT refusing to entertain a rectification application.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) v. Milan Kavin Parikh
Case No.: Income Tax Appeal No. 1827 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that no income addition can be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unless incriminating material is found during a search, even if the Revenue relies on information received from foreign authorities.
A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, which had deleted additions of nearly ₹28 crore made against the assessee, Milan Kavin Parikh.
Case Title: Godavari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Sindhi Vs Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune and Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 16464 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has stayed the entire income tax demand raised against a state-funded educational trust, holding that the tax authorities erred in bringing gross receipts to tax without accounting for expenditure.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, while allowing a writ petition filed by the assessee, Godavari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sindhi, set aside an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, which had directed the trust to deposit 15% of the disputed demand as a pre-condition for stay during pendency of the statutory appeal.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane Vs. Vrushali Sanjay Shinde
Case No.: ITA(L) No. 12683 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue, holding that an approval granted under Section 153D of the Act, which does not reflect even minimal application of mind, is vitiated in law and renders the consequential proceedings invalid.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while deciding an appeal, answered the substantial question of law against the Revenue i.e. Whether an approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, without recording reasons, can nevertheless be treated as mechanical and invalid for lack of application of mind and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had quashed the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act.
Case Title: M/s Colorcon Asia pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case No.: Tax Appeal No. 5 of 2024
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by an Indian subsidiary to its foreign shareholder must be restricted to the treaty rate of 10% under Article 11 of the India-UK India Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd., and set aside the advance ruling passed by the Board for Advance Rulings, (BFAR) New Delhi.
Calcutta HC
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 Kolkata Vs Champalal Omprakash
Case no.: ITAT/5/2025
The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an ITAT order deleting the addition of over ₹4 crore made to the income of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in reassessment action.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak held that the Assessing Officer had erred in not disposing of the written objection submitted by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of ₹7.29 Crore Penalty Imposed On Dissolved HUF
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Chandravadan Desai (HUF)
Case no.: ITAT/274/2024
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of penalty proceedings initiated against a dissolved Hindu Joint Family. A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the ITAT order which had relied on a Supreme Court ruling to declare the penalty action void-ab-initio.
The Top Court had in CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited held that notice and/or consequent order issued in the name of a non-existent person renders the entire proceedings and all consequent actions to be a nullity in the eye of law.
Case title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 1, Kolkata v. Wise Investment Private Limited
Case no.: ITAT/238/2024
The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that the Delhi High Court decisions in NR Portfolio and Navodaya Castles will hold no value where an assessee-company establishes the identity of its shares subscribers, creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transactions.
In CIT v. NR Portfolio Private Limited (2014) and in CITA v. Navodaya Castles Private Limited (2014), the Delhi High Court had held that mere production of incorporation details, PAN Nos. or the fact that third persons or company had filed income tax details in case of a private limited company may not be sufficient when surrounding and attending facts predicate a cover up. These facts indicate and reflect proper paperwork or documentation but genuineness, creditworthiness, identity are deeper and obtrusive.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1, Kolkata v. Rungta Mines Limited
Case Number: ITAT/215/2024
The Calcutta High Court held that Internal CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method is most appropriate for ALP (Arm's Length Price) determination in captive power transactions.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing issue of whether the Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method adopted by the assessee was right in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for power supplied by the assessee's Captive Power Plants (CPPs) to non-eligible units for transfer pricing adjustments.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Minto Park Estates Private Limited
Case Number: ITAT/4/2025 (IA NO: GA/2/2025)
The Calcutta High Court held that mere incorporation of investing companies under the Companies Act is not enough to prove the genuineness of share transactions.
The bench opined that, admittedly, the shares were by way of a private placement. Though the investing companies might have been incorporated under the provisions of the Company's Act, that by itself will not validate the transaction.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Zulu Merchandise Private Limited
Case Number: ITAT/88/2025 (IA NO: GA/2/2025)
The Calcutta High Court held that stock exchange and banking channels cannot mask sham transactions carried out through bogus capital loss claim companies.
Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed that “the entire information contained in the investigation report was apprised to the assessee by the assessing officer and thereafter the show cause notices was issued for which the assessee' submitted their reply and in the reply they did not raise any issue that they were unaware about the investigation report but made a vague and unsubstantiated statement stating that the transaction was in the normal course of business.”
Case Title: The West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-54 Kolkata
Case Number: ITAT/36/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that interest earned on surplus lending funds is attributable to banking business, qualifies for 80P deduction under Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) stated that interest earned by the West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. on surplus funds from NABARD lending business eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Rajneesh Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)
Case Number: WPO/398/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that the Income Tax Department cannot withhold a refund under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless it establishes tax liability.
The Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that it is true that Section 245 of the said Act authorises the Income Tax Department to set off a refund against remaining tax payable. Unfortunately, in this case, the respondent has not been able to demonstrate that any amount is payable or is due from the assessee. Law does not sanction recovery of tax in the absence of any specific charging statutory provision.
Case Title: Shiv Kumar Saraf v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WPO/646/2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated unless incriminating material relating to the assessee is found during a search and both the assessing officers (the Assessing Officer of the searched person as well as the Assessing Officer of the person other than the searched person) record the necessary satisfaction.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any incriminating material had been found against the assessee in the search and seizure operation.
Case Title: Sandhya Rani Jana and Anr. v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Case Number: F.M.A. 70 of 2023
The Calcutta High Court held that when a victim's income tax return is filed, it is a reliable and authentic basis for assessing income in motor accident claims. The bench granted compensation of Rs. 39 Lakh to the claimants (mother and father) of the victim.
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury stated that once an Income Tax Return is accepted by the Income Tax Authority, it becomes an authentic document with regard to the income of the victim.
Case Title: Himadri Speciality Chemical Limited v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4) & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 21228 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is impermissible when it is based on the same survey material that the Assessing Officer (AO) has already examined and accepted in earlier proceedings.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that the reassessment proceeding is clearly impermissible…It would be a clear case of “change of opinion”. Indeed, the principle that assessment of a given assessee for a given assessment year cannot be reopened by the relevant Assessing Officer on the ground of change of opinion is usually applied in the case of the same assessee for the same assessment year but there is no reason why such a principle cannot be extended and applied to a case like the one at hand.
Case Title: Mark Steels Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata & Ors.
Case Number: WPO 584 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that the mere reopening of an assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be treated as a change of opinion if the earlier proceedings were dropped due to lack of evidence.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that on the basis of a change of opinion of the assessing officer, a notice under Section 148 of the said Act cannot be issued. For a case of change of opinion to be established an assessing officer must arrive at an opinion that there has been no escapement of income on the ground noted therein.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited v. DCIT Circle-1(1), Raipur, C.G.
Case Number: TAXC No. 91 of 2024
In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act not applicable if assessee voluntary discloses bona fide mistake. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari noted that “it is a case where the assessee came up fairly before the Assessing Officer correcting the error crept in while submitting the return and revised return that too before initiation of the scrutiny assessment proceedings. Even it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has concealed the income.”
Case Title: Sandeep Kaur Gill v. Union of India
Case Number: TAXC No. 98 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that bona fide belief coupled with genuineness of transactions constitutes a reasonable cause under section 273B of the Income Tax Act for not invoking Section 271E of the Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari referring to Section 273B of the Income Tax Act stated that the word 'reasonable cause' has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the words 'reasonable cause' would mean a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee.
Case Number: TAXC No. 56 of 2025
Case Title: Raj Kumar Bothra v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot apply Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act), to disallow a claim where the issue involved, such as the deductibility of employees' contributions to EPF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va), was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2023) 6 SCC 451].
In this regard, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari held, “…we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer should not have resorted to the provisions contained under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 and instead could have resorted to the provisions under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961, as on the date of issuance of intimation order dated 16.12.2021 by the Assessing Officer, exercising power under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, the subject issue was highly debatable and ultimately, that issue was resolved by their Lordships in the matter of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (supra) on a later date.”
Case Title: Nanakchand Agrawal v. The Income-tax Officer
Case Number: TAXC No. 8 of 2024
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that cash deposits during demonetisation are not unexplained money if traceable to previous year's balance.
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari stated that the factum of liquidation/refund of short-term loans and advances and its consequential accumulation as cash-in-hand as on 31-3-2016 could have been examined in the assessment year 2016-17 only particularly when the Assessing Officer has not discharged the burden cast upon him to implicate the assessee into the sweep of Section 69A.
Compensation Received From NHAI For Acquisition Of Land Not Taxable: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Baid v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: TAXC No. 176 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the compensation received against the acquisition of land from the NHAI (National Highways Authority of India) is not exigible to tax under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act (Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013).
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal stated that once compensation is determined under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, as a necessary corollary, the benefits flowing from the provisions of the said Act, including exemptions from income tax, stamp duty and fees contemplated under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, would also have to be made applicable.
Case Title: Harish Kumar Chhabada v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Officer
Case Number: TAXC No. 138 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that failure to raise a timely objection to jurisdiction under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act bars the assessee from challenging the assessment.
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Radhakishan Agrawal stated that the assessee also did not raise any objection regarding jurisdiction upon completion of his assessment. As such, the plea with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the ITO was barred by virtue of Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi HC
Case title: Sumit Bharana v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16701/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that co-accused are entitled to apply separately for compounding of offences committed by a Company or a Hindu Undivided Family under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the co-accused need not await filing of application for compounding by the company or the HUF.
Case title: S A N Garments Manufacturing Private Limited v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 7 And Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 932/2024
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a designated authority under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 cannot reopen an assessment after a final certificate is issued under Section 5 of the Act and all disputes with regard to the 'tax arrear' stand concluded.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “once a declarant is issued a certificate (Form No.5) in terms of Section 5 of the DTVSV Act, and the declarant deposits the determined amount, the Designated Authority is proscribed from initiating any action or proceedings in respect of 'tax arrear'. The dispute stands settled.”
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central -1 v. Capital Power Systems Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 501/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be invoked for reassessment only to give effect to a 'conclusive finding' by an appellate authority regarding escapement of income by an assessee.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that invocation of the provision requires a “strict and cautious application” of the terms 'findings' and 'direction' to prevent the reopening of assessments based on findings or directions that are only incidental, tangential, or beyond statutory authority.
Case title: ATS Township Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13790/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessing officer of a searched person to record 'satisfaction' and handover documents regarding undisclosed income of another person cannot be substituted by merely uploading such information on the Department's insight portal.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Uploading of information by the investigation wing of the Income Tax department would not be a substitute for recording of a satisfaction note by the AO of a searched person and handing over the assets, books of accounts or other material to the AO of the person other than the searched person for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act.”
Case title: Abhishek Bansal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17300/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that merely producing transaction documents to establish that payments were made to an entity is not sufficient to defend the allegations of accommodation entries.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The documents provided by the petitioner would establish that the payments had been made to Shri Ajay Gupta through banking channels. However, the same does not address the allegation of purchases reflected were accommodation entries…In the present case, the petitioner was required to clearly show the movement of goods to establish that the goods had in fact moved from Shri Ajay Gupta to the petitioner. However, it does not appear that any such information was provided by the petitioner to the AO.”
Case title: Late Sh. Lal Chand Verma Through His Legal Heir v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8184/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 159 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked to proceed against the legal representative of an assessee, only in cases where the reassessment notice was issued to the assessee during his lifetime, not after.
Division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma noted that “Section 159 of the Act is applicable when proceedings are initiated and pending against an assessee during their lifetime, and the legal representative assumes responsibility after the assessee's death. This was not the factual scenario in the present case; therefore, Section 159 of the Act is not applicable here.”
Case title: Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10960/2016
The Delhi High Court has held that the delay in issuing requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be condoned if the same is explained by the Authority concerned.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “...there has been some delay in issuance of the impugned requisition, however, the Income Tax Department has explained that the said delay was on account of investigations conducted by it. In the given circumstances, we are unable to accept that the impugned requisition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay. ”
Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12316/2022
The Delhi High Court has turned down the contention that an Assessing Officer, at the stage of passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, is not required to form any opinion as to the genuineness or veracity of the information available against an assessee.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “As is clear from the plain language of Section 148A(d) of the Act, the AO has to decide whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. This decision would require the AO to take a view in respect of the material available and form an opinion whether there are grounds to believe that the assessee's income has escaped assessment.”
Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12316/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that merely because notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is issued in the name of an amalgamating company which had ceased to exist, subsequent notice issued under Section 148A(d) in the name of merged entity cannot be declared invalid.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “The nature of proceedings under Section 148A of the Act is to enable the AO to form an opinion whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Given the nature of the proceedings under Section 148A of the Act, we are unable to accept that issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in the name of an entity, which had since amalgamated with the petitioner, would be fatal to the AO assuming jurisdiction by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in the name of the petitioner.”
Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) No.17570/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer is required to be satisfied that accommodation entries as alleged in show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 exist, particularly where the assessee produces its accounts.
In doing so, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heavily relied on its recent ruling in Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. where it was held that to initiate reassessment proceedings under the Act, the AO must conduct an enquiry with respect to the information that suggests escapement of income, to ascertain its correctness.
Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2830/2022
The Delhi High Court observed that absence of a formal notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not fatal to reassessment proceedings initiated in the twilight zone when the inquiry provisions were introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma noted that the Department had provided an opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to question the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148, which was the “underlying principle” of Section 148A.
Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2830/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that the benchmark of minimum Rs. 50 lakh income escapement prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be met at the very initiation of reassessment proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “Additions ultimately made in the course of reassessment would not validate the initiation of proceedings if founded on income of INR 46,17,000/- having escaped assessment and thus evidently below the threshold of INR 50 lakhs.”
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 1029/2018
The Delhi High Court has held that Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd (SIEL), a wholly owned subsidiary of South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. is not its 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) in India, hence not exigible to tax here.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar agreed with ITAT's findings that the secondment of employees by Samsung Korea was merely with the objective of facilitating the activities of SIEL, not its own.
Case title: Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 3
Case no.: ITA 426/2024
The Delhi High Court recently said aside an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, deciding grounds that did not arise from the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The Assessee's challenge to the addition of ₹4,30,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act had remained unaddressed by the learned CIT(A) but had been affirmed by the learned ITAT, without the same arising from the order passed by the learned CIT(A). The learned ITAT has clearly erred in entering into the said controversy without the learned CIT(A) rendering any finding on merits in regard to the petitioner's appeal.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 9 v. M/S Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S North Delhi Power Limited)
Case no.: ITA 687/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would be inapplicable to an electricity generation company.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma thus dismissed the Department's appeals against Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited, a joint venture of Tata Power with the Delhi government for purposes of power generation and distribution of electricity in two districts of Delhi.
Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2830/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) did not affirm the authority of a Joint Commissioner to grant approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed that the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case “merely alluded to the time frames within which approval under Section 151 of the could be sought for and obtained.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Delhi Vedanta Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 88/2022
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined the Income Tax Department's appeal to treat as 'curable', the error committed in naming the relevant entity while issuing reassessment notices. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma refused to grant the benefit which the Supreme Court had given to the Department in Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant commissioner of Income-tax (2018).
It observed, “It was the conduct of the assessee in Sky Light which had convinced the Supreme Court to observe that the mistake would not render the order of assessment invalid and that it could be saved under Section 292B of the. The facts of the present case are clearly not akin to what prevailed in Sky Light.”
Case title: Grid Solutions OY (Ltd) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1196/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that whether an entity is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign company or not is a “fact-specific” issue which must be examined separately for different tax periods.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The position of a PE being a facts-specific issue and thus liable to be examined against the backdrop of what obtained in a particular tax period…”
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, New Delhi v. DCM Shriram Ltd.
Case no: ITA 566/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the rate at which power is supplied by the State Electricity Board (SEB) or the Power Distribution Companies is an appropriate metric for determining market price of electricity.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further held that rate at which electricity is sold on the Indian Energy Exchange (IEX) platform is not a 'comparable' and should not be considered to determine market value of the power supplied by the Assessee to its industrial units.
Case title: Abhinav Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 52
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7405/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that if the Revenue issues a reassessment notice to an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following due procedure, it cannot later issue fresh reassessment notice beyond the prescribed period, claiming that time spent on earlier litigation is to be excluded for the purposes of computing limitation.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the earlier round was set aside on the ground that the AO had not followed the mandatory requirement of seeking an approval from the competent authority…The fact that the Revenue had not taken the steps in accordance with law cannot possibly be construed as a factor in favour of the Revenue for extending the limitation.”
Case title: Smt. Shivani Madan v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-01 & Anr.
Case no.: ITA 573/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that where a property is held jointly but only one co-owner reaps the benefit of income from such property, the other co-owner cannot be held liable to pay tax merely by virtue of co-ownership.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “the [Income Tax] Act fails to raise any presumption in law, of income necessarily arising or being liable to be assessed in the hands of an individual merely because it be a signatory to an instrument of conveyance. In our considered opinion, the question of taxability would necessarily have to be answered bearing in mind the individual who had in fact obtained benefits from the property.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar
Case no.: ITA 199/2017
The Delhi High Court has held that the fees paid by IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to acquire the goodwill vested in a company run by the family members of its deceased founder, is a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the primary, nay, sole purpose for incurring expenditure towards license fee was to use the words “Remfry & Sagar” and derive benefit of the goodwill attached to it. The appellant do not dispute that Dr. Sagar had validly acquired the goodwill and that the same constituted a valuable asset which was transferable.”
Case title: Property Plus Realtors v. Union Of India & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17371/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the date of the assessment order, wherein an Assessing Officer recommended separate penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting more than ₹2 lakh in cash, is not relevant for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said a plain reading of Section 275(1)(c) indicates that the time limit for completion of the action for imposition of penalty is to be reckoned from: (a) the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed; or (b) six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever expires later.
Case title: M/S SMEC India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9969/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be preferred by an assessee who makes suo motu disallowance in its Return of Income (RoI/ ITR), under a bonafide yet mistaken belief that the same was liable to be offered for taxation.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar added that the assessee cannot be denied relief merely on the ground that the application was moved without amending the RoI.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd
Case no.: ITA 474/2023
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the effect that Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd is not a dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) of Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar affirmed that no further attribution of profit can be made as Adobe India was remunerated at arm's length.
Case title: Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3908/2023
The Delhi High Court has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to elucidate the time period surviving under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing reassessment notices.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would be excluded from limitation, in view of Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
Further, the period between the date of issuance of the impugned reassessment notices (if falling between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021) up to the date of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal case (04 May 2022), would also be excluded, in light of third proviso to Section 149(1). The bench added that the third period which is liable to be excluded is the time for furnishing objections by the assessee.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd
Case no.: ITA 388/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that the limit prescribed under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, on deductions that an employer can seek for contributions made towards superannuation funds, applies only at the stage of setting up the fund or making ordinary annual payments.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would not be rendered as a disallowable expense.
Case title: Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16232/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period for initiating reassessment against an assessee, is not an enabling provision but rather a proscription on the Assessing Officer's powers.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act is a hard stop. Therefore, the procedure that is required to be completed for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be completed prior to the expiry of the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. Such time limit cannot be breached…There is no ambiguity in this regard given the construct of Section 149(1) of the Act, which is not in the nature of enabling provision but a provision that proscribes an action.”
Case title: Aon Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Successor Entity Of Aon Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 And Ors.
Case no.: ITA 244/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a dispute with respect to arm's length price in a transfer pricing can be resolved under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) only by consent and negotiations between contracting parties.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that such a resolution cannot be imposed in a contested case, where there is no consensus.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd
Case no.: ITA 113/2024
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer passing an impugned assessment order is situated would have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tushar Rao Gedela agreed with the assessee, stating that since the appeal before it emanates from an assessment order issued by the AO in Amritsar, it does not have territorial jurisdiction.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 472/2018
The Delhi High Court has held that a Transfer Pricing Officer cannot compute the arm's length price of an assessee's international transactions as nil, merely because despite the services availed from such transactions, the assessee incurred a loss in business.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the TPO cannot weigh the ALP on the basis of financial benefits or commercial expediency of the transactions in question.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 472/2018
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the role of a Transfer Pricing Officer is to conduct a transfer pricing analysis and determine the arm's length price of an assessee's international transaction and the TPO cannot act as an Assessing Officer to probe the legitimacy of such transactions.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “It is necessary to bear in mind that there is a distinction between the functions of a TPO and an AO. The TPO is required to conduct a transfer pricing analysis to determine the ALP. It is not the TPO's function to determine whether, in fact, there is any service from which the Assessee derived any benefit. The question whether any expenditure has been incurred by the Assessee for earning revenue is a matter, which is required to be determined by the AO.”
The Delhi High Court has held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as contained under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned with the transfer of 'distinctive', 'specialized' knowledge, skill, expertise and know-how by a service provider.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus observed that assistance provided by the assessee-respondent with respect to rules and regulations for clearance of customs frontiers is not 'specialised knowledge' to make the service 'FTS'.
Case title: Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1662/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that after the closure of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer becomes 'functus officio' and to re-confer jurisdiction upon the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings, relevant incriminating material ought to be put to the assessee.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation while dealing with a writ petition filed by Vivo Mobiles, assailing the reassessment proceedings initiated against it under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title: Tilak Raj Singh v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 772/2018
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in terms of the Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 an employee cannot change travel destination midway through the journey and if due to some unavoidable circumstance it has been changed, the same has to be a destination which is en route.
In the case at hand, LTC was originally sought for travel to Trivandrum, which was subsequently changed to Goa, via Mumbai. However, the petitioner decided midway to change his destination to certain hill stations in Uttarakhand.
Case title: SFDC Ireland Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12847/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that before rejecting an assessee's application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for nil TDS or deduction of tax at a lower rate, the assessing officer must form a prima facie opinion regarding the assessee's taxability in India.
Section 197(1) of the Act enables an assessee to make an application for a certificate requiring the deduction of tax at a lower rate or no deduction at all if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the total income of the recipient justifies such nil deduction or deduction at a lower rate.
Case title: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9786/2016
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment action initiated by the Income Tax Department against car manufacturer Maruti Suzuki India Ltd for alleged escapement of income in the Assessment Year 2009-10.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed that the company had made full and true disclosure of all facts in the course of the assessment and the Department did not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title: Ateesh Agarwal v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2139/2025
The Delhi High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by a man, seeking an inquiry into the finances of his wife and her family who claimed to have paid him ₹2 crores dowry, in addition to spending crores of rupees on their wedding.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the complaint stemmed from a matrimonial feud and the man was unable to indicate the provision under which such a complaint was made to the Income Tax department.
CBDT Cannot Impose Limitations To Extinguish Rights Granted Under Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8444/2018
Recently, the Delhi High Court held that Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) cannot impose limitations to extinguish rights granted under Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the wide powers granted to the CBDT are not for extinguishing a right that is conferred by the Act. Accordingly, the Court Circular No. 07/2007 dated 23 October 2007 issued by the CBDT to the be ultra vires the Income Tax Act.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. Nokia Network OY
Case no.: ITA 785/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that a subsidiary or an entity which is substantially controlled by another entity in a contracting State does not by itself become a Permanent Establishment (PE) of that other entity.
Citing Article 5 of the India-Finland Double Taxation Treaty, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “There is no general presumption in law that a subsidiary can never be acknowledged to be a PE. This since Article 5(8) itself merely states that the said factor alone shall not be determinative of the PE question. The covenant thus clearly obliges us to evaluate the facts based on the other provisions comprised in Article 5 of the DTAA.”
Case title: M/S Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, & Anr.
Case no.: ITA 45/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which contemplates tax incentives for enterprises operating in specific industries and locations in India, does not require such enterprises to enter into an agreement with the Government.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar distinguished the provision from Section 80IA, whereunder agreement with the Centre, State or local authority is a pre-condition for claiming deductions.
Case title: Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2043/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be used to save an assessment order passed by overlooking errors apparent on face of the record. The provision provides that no notice or assessment or any proceedings can be deemed to be invalid merely for the reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice, assessment or other proceedings.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said while the provision would save reassessment notice which inadvertently furnished to assessee information relating to some other individual instead of his own however, the subsequent reassessment order passed by overlooking such mistake cannot be condoned.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 v. M/S Ridgeview Construction Pvt. Ltd
Case no.: ITA 618/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that even though Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not in its original form prescribe two-tier satisfaction of Assessing Officers of both the searched and non-searched entity for initiating reassessment, the same cannot be deemed absent.
“In our considered opinion, while and undoubtedly Section 153C as it stood at the relevant time did not contemplate a two tier recordal of satisfaction and the AO of the searched person was merely obliged to transmit the material belonging or pertaining to a third person gathered in the course of a search, proceedings under the said provision could not have been triggered mechanically absent the formation of opinion by the AO of the non-searched person that the material was likely to impact an assessment made,” a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed.
Case title: Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 356/2025
The Delhi High Court has expressed grave concern over the pendency of over 5.4 Lakh appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The body was created for faceless assessment under Section 143 or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the insertion of Section 144B via the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked, “This court is cognizant of the large number of statutory appeals pending for disposal before the NFAC and express concern over the delay in disposal of such appeals, for which the NFAC was envisaged.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 320/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to appeals to High Courts, does not envisage the filing of cross-objections by the opposite party, unlike Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The Legislature appears to have consciously desisted from adopting principles akin to Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code or specifically introducing provisions enabling the respondent in an appeal under Section 260A to prefer cross-objections.”
Case title: GE Grid (Switzerland) GMBH v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1294/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that the existence of a foreign entity's Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is required to be determined in law for each year separately on the basis of the scope, extent, nature and duration of activities in each year.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja made the observation while dealing with a Swiss company's case, which was aggrieved by various reassessment notices issued for AYs 2013-18 for alleged escapement of income generated by its alleged PE, namely, GE T&D India Ltd.
Case title: Fasttrack Tieup Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15237/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot, suspecting escapement of tax on income by an assessee, indefinitely attach its properties without taking further steps to resolve the matter.
Single judge Justice Sachin Datta observed that Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which empowers the Tax Recovery Officer to proceed with “attachment and sale of assessee's movable property” to recover the due taxes, explicitly states “attachment and sale,” signifying a sequential process where the property, once attached, must subsequently be sold to recover the arrears.
Case title: PCIT-1, New Delhi v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt.Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 155/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that before the Income Tax Department commences transfer pricing benchmarking analysis of an assessee's international transactions, the very existence of such 'international transaction' must be determined.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while dealing with the case of an Indian entity producing liquor for brands like Jim Beam, observed, “the commencement of a benchmarking analysis would have to necessarily be preceded by the Revenue identifying the existence of a transaction as defined and which undoubtedly constitutes a sine qua non. This clearly flows from the plain text of Section 92B(1), which proceeds to define an “international transaction” as being a “transaction” between two or more AEs.”
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. WGF Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 184/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allowance in respect of bad debts as an expense under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible only if: (a) the debt was taken into account for computing the income of the assessee in the previous year in which the amount is written off or prior previous years; or (b) represents money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending.
Case title: Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 399/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power of the Central government to relax conditions prescribed under Rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules 1962, read with Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1962, is exceptional, discretionary and cannot ordinarily be subject to judicial review.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the power to relax a Rule or a condition is by way of an exception, and the scope of such power cannot be construed in an expansive manner.
Case title: Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: ITA 660/2018
The Delhi High Court has allowed Vodafone Mobile, engaged in providing telecommunication services, to claim depreciation of ₹5.10 crores in respect of fixed assets over provisioned expenditure to discharge its contractual obligation of restoring mobile tower sites to their original condition at the end of the lease period.
Though Asset reconstruction Cost (ARC) was laid out by Vodafone, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim, stating that the same is not 'ascertained liability'.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. D Light Energy P. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 53/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where the distributor of an imported product makes no value addition to it before sale, Resale Price Method is the most appropriate method to determine the arm's length price in relation to its business with an Associated Enterprise.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela thus dismissed the appeal preferred by Revenue against a Solar products distributor, which imported goods from an Associated Enterprise (AE) for resale.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 61/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' cannot be made applicable to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which enables an assessing officer to open an assessment if he has 'reason to believe' that an assessee's income escaped assessment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “It is trite that the concept of “proving beyond reasonable doubt” applies “strictu senso” to penal provisions/statutes. It is also trite that in taxing statutes, in particular, section 148 of the Act, the “reason to believe”, must be based on objective materials, and on a reasonable view.”
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation
Case no.: ITA 469/2023
In an order bringing relief to the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), which was incorporated to protect the interests of various stakeholders in the field of television broadcasting, the Delhi High Court allowed the body to claim exemption from payment of tax under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “BARC, being a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, is legally prohibited from distributing any dividends or profits to its shareholders. Additionally, in the event of liquidation, Memorandum of Association of BARC mandates that any surplus must be transferred to another company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act with similar objectives, thereby negating any possibility of personal gain or profit for the Assessee from its deployment of funds.”
Case title: Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10867/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that when an appellate authority has asked the Income Tax Department to not take any coercive steps against an assessee for recovery of outstanding demands, the same can in some cases interdict the Department from adjusting the outstanding amount from refunds due to the assessee.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia took note of a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which held that an adjustment would amount to 'coercive proceedings'.
Case title: Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394 Case no.: W.P.(C) 11156/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory scheme of Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not envisage the discovery of a connection or interrelationship between the searched and the non-searched entity.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the trigger for Section 153C is the discovery of articles in the course of a search which pertain or belong to a third party, and which may have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person.
Case title: Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11376/2024
In a relief to German cargo airline Lufthansa, the Delhi High Court set aside the Revenue's order denying nil TDS certificate to the company for the financial year 2024-25.
“Where the petitioner has been granted certificate at nil withholding tax for prior assessment years and there is no issue to the chargeability of the petitioner's income to tax under the Act, the impugned certificate requiring withholding tax at reduced rate instead of nil rate, cannot be sustained,” Court said.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption Delhi v. IILM Foundation
Case no.: ITA 179/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that a Charitable Trust's status cannot be taken away citing violation of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely because it made reasonable payment for services rendered by a related party.
Ordinarily, Charitable Trusts are not allowed to make payments for the benefit of 'prohibited parties'. The division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia however ruled that if such payment is reasonable, in exchange for the services offered by such a prohibited person, the exemption can be claimed.
Case title: J. G'S Departmental Store v. Income Tax Officer Ward 60(1) & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13669/2024
The Delhi High Court has set aside the reassessment action initiated against a partnership firm under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 over cash deposits made by it during demonetisation, stating that this ground was not mentioned in the notice issued to the firm under Section 148A(b).
Holding that reasons for initiating action under Section 148A(d) must be mentioned in the SCN under Section 148A(b), a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tushar Rao Gedela said, “Concededly, there was no allegation in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act that the cash deposited by the Assessee in its bank account during the demonetization period was disproportionately higher in comparison with the cash deposited during the corresponding period in the previous financial year. Thus, the Assessee had no opportunity to provide any explanation in respect of such allegation.”
Case title: M/S L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4845/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer cannot add income that allegedly escaped assessment in different previous years, to meet the threshold of ₹50 lakh prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for initiating reassessment action after lapse of three years.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia in the facts of the case observed, “the AO has erred in proceeding on the basis that it was open for the AO to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind the cumulative income that has escaped assessment in respect of FYs 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. It is impermissible for the AO to add income which is alleged to have escaped assessment for different previous years for determining the threshold figure of ₹50 lakhs as specified under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.”
Case title: Ankit Khandelwal v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 297/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that when determining whether a reassessment action meets the ₹50 lakh threshold prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the value of income that allegedly escaped assessment as determined by the Assessing Officer at Section 148A(d) stage is relevant.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia clarified that the value alleged by the AO at Section 148A(b) stage, i.e. before considering the Assessee's stand, is not relevant for the purposes of threshold under Section 149.
Case title: Sukhbir S. Dagar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)
Case no.: ITA 741/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that sanction for initiation of reassessment action against an assessee under the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, cannot be issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
Section 151(1) contemplates issuance of sanction by JCIT for initiating reassessment action under Section 148 against an assessee who has already undergone scrutiny assessment. The proviso to Section 151(1) however adds that if the reassessment action is sought to be initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Bharti Airtel Ltd
Case no.: ITA 103/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department claiming that Bharti Airtel should have deducted TDS on payments made to overseas telecom service providers for bandwidth services.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia relied on CIT v. Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd. (2024) the High Court had held that where those availing services provided by a foreign telecom company were not accorded a right over the technology, infrastructure or any intellectual property, the agreements merely enabling availment of services cannot be construed as royalty taxable in India.
Case title: Carol Infrastructure Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3927/2025
The Delhi High Court made it clear that Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 “does not contemplate a hiatus” between handing over and receipt of information or documents pertaining to a non-searched entity.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed, “The main body of Section 153C(1) of the Act and the proviso do not contemplate a hiatus between the handing over of the documents by the AO having jurisdiction over such person and receipt of the same by the AO having jurisdiction over person other than the searched person.”
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Sneh Lata Sawhney (and batch)
Case no.: ITA 758/2023
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot be invoked to exclude the period of reference under the Indo-Swiss DTAA, if the reference itself is invalid.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed, “On a plain reading of Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Act, the exclusion of time taken for obtaining the information (or one year) for completion of the assessment under Section 153A of the Act is applicable only if a reference for exchange of information has to be made as per the Agreement under Section 90/90A of the Act. It is necessary that reference be made in terms of the agreement. In this case, the benefit of exclusion of time by virtue of Explanation (ix) of Section 153B of the Act would, thus, be available only if the reference was made in terms of IndoSwiss DTAA. However, as noted above, the request as made was not in terms of the Indo-Swiss DTAA. It was contrary to the limitations as expressly specified under Article 14 of the Amending Protocol.”
Case title: U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2068/2015 (and batch)
A larger bench of the Delhi High Court will decide whether Section 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, inserted vide a 2012 amendment to provide an extended period of reassessment for cases involving foreign assets, applies retrospectively.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia expressed disagreement with a coordinate bench decision in Brahm Datt v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others (2018) where it was held that provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act would not have any retrospective operation. It was of the view that the above decision was passed in ignorance of Explanation to Section 149, which clarified that the provision would be applicable for “any assessment year” beginning on or before 1st day of April 2012.
Case title: Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 9/2025
The Delhi High Court recently rejected the appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against an ITAT order allowing the valuation of a software company's unquoted equity shares by discounted cash flow [DCF] method.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia held that DCF method “is one of the methods that can be adopted by the Assessee under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the [Income Tax] Rules for determining the FMV of unquoted equity shares in a company in which public are not substantially interested.”
Case title: Sanjay Kaul v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24 (4), New Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11198/2019
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Income Tax Department cannot issue reassessment notice to an assessee based on general information shared by its Investigation Wing, until the Assessing Officer forms definite 'reason to believe' escapement of income.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed, “It is clear from the information received from the Investigation Wing…that the same was general in nature and did not point towards the involvement of the Petitioner in the arrangement of providing accommodation entry by contriving bogus short term capital loss. From the aforementioned information, it cannot be concluded that all the transactions…were sham in nature.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S K.R. Pulp And Papers Ltd.
Case no.: ITA No. 529/2023
The Delhi High Court recently rejected Revenue's appeal against deletion of additions made to the income of an assessee-company alleged to have evaded tax, observing that the AO had already scrutinised the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and in the absence of any additional material coming to light, reassessment action could not have been initiated.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed, “During the original proceedings, the AO had issued a questionnaire…The Assessee had furnished the response to the said questionnaire and had submitted the share application money, share application form, proof of identity, copy of PAN and copy of ITR as well as the bank statements of the share applicants. Thus, the identity as well as the creditworthiness of the applicants was duly scrutinized…Therefore, the AO was required to have some additional information, beyond what had already been examined, in order to form reasons to believe that the Assessee's income had escaped assessment.”
Payments Made To AWS For Cloud Computing Services Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case Title:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES
Case no.: ITA 150/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that payments made to Amazon Web Services (AWS) for cloud computing services do not qualify as “royalty.”
The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision which held that such payments are not taxable as royalties or fees for technical services (FTS). The Court referred to earlier judgments to emphasize the difference between transferring intellectual property rights and simply giving access to standardized digital services. It dismissed the appeal, highlighting the key distinction between access to digital resources and ownership or control over them.
Case title: M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11601/2024
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside the reassessment action initiated against journalist Rajat Sharma's company, M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., which owns and runs the India TV channel, over alleged foreign remittances.
The notice was issued following a survey conducted by the Income Tax Department at the J&K Bank back in 2019, revealing that the company had made foreign remittances amounting to ₹6,50,84,454/- during AY 2017-18, which did not tally with the amounts reflected in its bank statement.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 192/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against Thomson Press (India) over the sale of a property in Noida back in 2013, allegedly at a price much lower than the prevailing circle rate.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia noted that the registered agreement to sell and payment of stamp duty with respect to the property transaction were already completed by the date when the circle rate of the area in question was enhanced.
Case title: Tungsten Automation England Limited (Formerly Known As Tungsten Network Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi
Case no.: ITA 92/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that consideration paid for merely availing services that require technical expertise would not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Service' under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed that unless the recipient absorbs the technology and exploits it independently, it cannot qualify as 'FTS' which is taxable in India for the service provider.
Case title: Neeraj Bharadwaj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2) & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3979/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made on a non-searched entity only when the Assessing Officer has incriminating material which “has a bearing” on its total income.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia rejected Revenue's contention that there was no requirement that the information contained in the seized material which relates to a non-searched person should have a bearing on his income for the AO to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C.
Case title: Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax Office
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 1575/2018
The Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 276C, 276D and 277 of the Income Tax Act 1961 merely on the basis of some unauthorised documents alleging existence of an undisclosed Swiss Bank account in his name.
In doing so, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “Merely on some unauthenticated information received from a third Country with no material evidence, is not sufficient to make out a prima facie case and there cannot be a presumption that a person has committed any wrongdoing.Thus, mere surmise and conjectures is not enough to prosecute a person alleging a criminal offence under Section 276D.”
Case title: Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax Office
Case no.: CRL. M.C. 219/2018
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea for quashing a criminal complaint lodged under Income Tax Act 1961 for alleged tax evasion, moved on the ground that reassessment action was pending and hence the complaint was premature.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna cited P. Jayappan vs. S.K. Perumal, First Income Tax Officer [1984] where it was held that pendency of re-assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to the institution of criminal prosecution for the offences under Section 276-C or Section 277 Income Tax Act.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Xiocom (Nz) Ltd
Case no.: ITA 299/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that consideration paid by an Indian entity to a foreign company for the resale/ use of their computer software is not 'royalty'. A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus held that the Indian entity is not liable to deduct TDS in such cases.
The bench in this regard relied on Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Incometax & Another (2021) where the Supreme Court had held that amounts paid by Indian companies for the use of softwares developed by foreign companies do not amount to 'royalty' and that such payment do not give rise to income which is taxable in India.
Case title: Sangeet Seth v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16569/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the higher rate of 5% interest to be paid when an assessee moves second plea for compounding the offence of failure to pay Tax Deductible at Source (TDS), is not applicable if their first plea was simply rejected.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “5% is only chargeable when the earlier offence has been compounded. This means that the compounding order should have been passed, and also the conditions stipulated in the said order should have been complied with (like payments), for the respondents to claim 5% charges on the second application, which necessarily has to be for a second offence.”
Case title: Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 49(1), New Delhi
Case no.: ITA 267/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that an employer can claim deduction of employees' contributions towards Provident Fund or Employer's State Insurance Fund, held by it in trust, only if it deposits these amounts on or before the statutory due date prescribed under the relevant labour law.
Thus a division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held, “Employer's contributions under Section 36(1)(iv) and employees' contributions covered under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section2(24)(x) are fundamentally different in nature and must be treated separately. Employees' contribution deducted from their salaries are deemed to be income under Section 2(24)(x) and are held in trust by the employer. The employers can claim deduction only if they deposit these amounts on or before the statutory due date under Section 36(1)(va).”
Case title: Raj Krishan Gupta And Ors v. Principal Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) -1 New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11005/2024
The Delhi High Court has upheld the surprise search and seizure conducted by the Income Tax Department at the private lockers maintained by a family at South Delhi Vaults, without issuance of prior notice or summons to them. The family claimed that failure to notify them was a flagrant violation of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which relates to 'Search and seizure'.
Section 132(1)(c) stipulates that when the Department has 'reason to believe' that any person is in possession of undisclosed money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles, then the officer authorised may open the locker, safe, etc. and seize such articles. The Petitioners however stressed on sub-sections (a) of the provision which stipulates issuance of summons or notice to such persons, asking them to produce books of account explaining the articles.
Case title: Megha Engineering And Infrastructure Ltd v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3479/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that the Finance Act 2021, which retrospectively abolished the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), responsible for enabling compromise between the state and its tax payers, cannot create a void. For context, the Finance Act 2021 envisaged replacing the ITSC with a body known as the Interim Board of Settlements from 01.02.2021. However, the Act came into force on 01.04.2021.
Thus, the question before the Court was whether settlement applications made in the interregnum, at which point there was no amendment of the statute, can be denied acceptance/processing by way of a retrospective amendment.
Case title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Anuradha Misra
Case no.: CONT.CAS(C) 506/2019
The Delhi High Court has dropped the civil contempt proceedings initiated against a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (now retired) six years ago, for alleged wilful disobedience of its order to give reasons for insisting an assessee to deposit 20% demand in appeal.
The proceedings were initiated suo moto in 2019 on a prima facie opinion but on a closer scrutiny, Justice Vikas Mahajan now found that the Respondent's order though brief, was not bereft of reasons.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue's Demand Against Casio India In Transfer Pricing Case
Case Name: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 v CASIO INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD
Case Number: ITA 505/2025
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a transfer pricing demand against Casio India, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Japanese watchmaker, related to advertising, marketing and promotion expenses for the assessment year 2017-18
The Division Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar ruled that the issue had already been settled in Casio's favour in previous years and therefore requires similar treatment.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Remfry And Sagar
Case no.: ITA 525/2025 + ITA 526/2025 + ITA 527/2025 + ITA 528/2025 + ITA 531/2025
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the ITAT allowing IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to treat the license fees paid by it to acquire its founder's goodwill, as a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed the appeals preferred by the Income Tax Department against the firm.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 v. M/S Agroha Fincap Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 60/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Commissioner's order granting sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for reopening assessment after four years of the relevant Assessment Year (AY) can be in the words— “Yes, I am convinced”.
Section 151(1) of the Act categorically provides that no notice for reassessment shall be issued under Section 148 by the Assessing Officer (AO), after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY, unless the Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.
Case title: M/s Vedanta Ltd v. ACIT Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16378/2025
In granting relief to Vedanta Limited, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the the Income Tax Department for initiation of reassessment action against the Copper manufacturer, over alleged fraudulent availment of Input tax credit worth over ₹424 Crore.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that the GST Department had already closed the case. “Closing of the proceedings by the GST Department would have an impact and bearing on the Section 148A proceedings and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter deserves to be remanded for reconsideration, in view of the GST order dated 11th July, 2025,” the judges said.
Case title: Santosh Kumar Suri v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15373/2025
The Delhi High Court recently criticized the Income Tax Department for an over 2-year delay in implementing an ITAT order, directing it to reconsider the demand raised against an assessee.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and aShail Jain observed that the Income Tax Department must implement judicial orders with “alacrity” however in this case, it woke up only after the assessee moved the High Court to seek enforcement of the ITAT order passed back in January 2023.
Case title: Grid Solutions SAS v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16355/2025
The Delhi High Court recently found time-barred, an income tax reassessment notice generated by the Department on the last day of the limitation window but, issued to the assessee only a day after.
The limitation period in the case at hand expired on June 30, 2025 (inclusive). The Income Tax Department claimed that the notice was generated on June 30, 2025 at 21:14:46 and signed on June 30, 2025 at 21:16:15 however, due to a technical glitch, it was shared on the assessee's e-filing portal only the next day.
Case title: Inder Dev Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2-Delhi (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16937/2025 (and batch)
The Delhi High Court has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The position has been in dispute since introduction of the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, which led to the setting up of the National Faceless Assessment Centre with Faceless Assessing Officers.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Delhi v. KRBL Infrastructure Ltd
Case no.: ITA 494/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that once the initial onus cast upon an assessee to show the genuineness of its creditors is duly discharged, the question as to whether the funds of the creditor were obtained through genuine purchases or not cannot be gone into by the Revenue.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “Once the assessee discharges its initial onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and also the genuineness of the transaction, it is not incumbent upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the funds at the hands of its lender, i.e., the “source of the source” of the funds.”
Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone 9-Month Delay By Assessee In Filing Revised Income Tax Return
Case title: Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department Ministry Of Finance
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17379/2025
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 9-months by an assessee in filing his revised income tax return (ITR).
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar remarked, “Surely it should not take nine months to realize that initial ITR has some mistakes, which requires a revised return.”
Case title: Neeraj Guglani v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15 & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2579/2024
The Delhi High Court recently condoned the delay by an assessee in filing his Income Tax Return, citing his health condition as 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “petitioner has highlighted the medical reasons, which prevented him from filing the ITR timely. The medical condition do indicate seriousness, which required surgery for cervical OPLL. Presumption can surely be drawn that the medical condition has prevented the filing of ITR within time.”
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Clifford Chance Pte Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 353/2025 + ITA 354/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that in the absence of any physical presence, virtual services rendered by a foreign law firm in India would not constitute taxable service under India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “Article 5(6) of the DTAA only contemplates rendering of services by employees present within the country. If that be so, it is not for this Court to analyse the status or merits of a virtual service permanent establishment which does not find mention either in the DTAA or in the domestic Act. As such, the contention of the Revenue that a virtual service permanent establishment of the assessee has been established for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 cannot be accepted.”
Case title: Amandeep Singh Proprietor, Guru Kripa Enterprises v. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 10 (1)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17047/2025
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with income reassessment action initiated by the tax authorities merely on the ground that two successive notices under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 were issued to the assessee.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “as the fresh notice dated 13.06.2025 was issued with the same contents, the previous notice automatically becomes infructuous. Thus, no jurisdictional issue arises.”
Case title: Akasaki Technology (P) Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: ITA 241/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals cannot remand assessment back to the Assessing Officer, unless it decides the jurisdictional validity of AO's order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Section 144 empowers the deals with the assessment of a taxpayer that is carried out by the Assessing Officer (AO) as per his best judgement and based on all relevant information gathered.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I Vs. M/S Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: ITA No. 690/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against M/s Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd., reaffirming that no substantial question of law arises where the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) conclusions are unsupported by cogent evidence and the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee in earlier years.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Mini Pushkarna was hearing an appeal filed by the Revenue for AY. 2012-2013, stated that that identical issues had been initiated by the Revenue since Assessment Year 2007-08 and had been consistently decided against it.
Case title: M/S Sirez Limited v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 405/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that internal disputes between the Directors of a company is not 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, preventing timely filing of its Income Tax Return, particularly in absence of convincing evidence.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Madhu Jain observed, “The internal dispute among the Directors of the company is not a genuine hardship, which can be the ground on which the delay can be condoned. Even otherwise, we are of the view, the dispute between the Directors, when the company is an ongoing concern cannot be the reason to not to file the ITR which is a statutory obligation on the part of the company.”
Case title: Saumya Chaurasia v. Union Of India & Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8191/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that approval of collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers is only required in cases where tax evaded is less than the threshold limit of ₹25 Lakh.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held, “the appropriate authority for initiating the prosecution proceedings would be the sanctioning authority i.e., the PCIT and not the collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers since the tax to be evaded exceeds Rs. 25 lacs.”
Income Tax Act | S.153C Trigger Starts On Handing-Over Date, Not Search Date: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram Vs. Deepak Kumar Aggarwal
Case No.: ITA No. 742/2025 CM APPL. 78543/2025 CM APPL. 78544/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram, upholding the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order which had rejected a reassessment notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the six-year block period under Section 153C must be computed from the date when seized documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer of the “other person,” and not from the date of search on the original assessee.
Software Receipts Can't Be Taxed On PE Assumption Already Rejected By ITAT: Delhi High Court
Case title: Zscaler Inc v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10556/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that software receipts cannot be subjected to tax deduction at source (TDS) on the assumption of a Permanent Establishment (PE) when such an assumption has already been rejected by ITAT, setting aside a withholding certificate issued under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by Zscaler Inc, a US-based software company, challenging the Assessing Officer's order granting TDS certificate (withholding certificate) under Section 197 at 8.75% on payments received from company's Indian customers.
Case title: Rajesh Gupta & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 31 Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12433/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the 120-day period prescribed under the second proviso to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for deciding an assessee's request for release of seized assets is not mandatory, and a decision taken beyond the said period does not automatically become invalid.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar was dealing with a petition challenging the Income Tax Department's refusal to release jewellery seized during search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Holds ICC Trademark Rights Under LG Sponsorship Agreement Attract Royalty TDS
Case Title: M/S LG Electronics India P.Ltd & Anr. Vs. Director of Income Tax(International Taxation) & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 15181/2004
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Income Tax Department's decision to treat a portion of sponsorship payments made for ICC cricket events as taxable royalty.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar refused to interfere with an order passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, which had held that one-third of the USD 11 million paid by LG to Global Cricket Corporation (GCC), Singapore, was attributable to the “right to use” ICC trademarks and logos, and therefore liable to tax as royalty at 15% under Section 9(1)(vi) read with the India–Singapore DTAA.
Case title: Makemytrip India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 16 1 Delhi & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 19288/2025
The Delhi High Court has set aside reassessment proceedings initiated against MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the notices issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were unreasoned.
A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar allowed the writ petition filed by the company, which had challenged the reassessment action relating to an alleged unexplained receipt of over ₹50 crore, purportedly arising from information obtained during a search conducted in the case of a third party.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax-1), New Delhi v. Exl Service.Com Inc (Presently Known As Exl Service Com Llc)
Case no.: ITA 748/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that outsourcing customer care and back-office services to an Indian subsidiary does not, by itself, result in the creation of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India–US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against EXL Service.com Inc., upholding the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that the US-based entity did not have a fixed place PE, service PE, or agency PE in India.
Case title: Clearmedi Healthcare Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 19495/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that deposit of 20% of the disputed tax demand is not mandatory for grant of stay, and that the Assessing Officer (AO) must independently exercise discretion under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar relied on National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)Circle 2 (1), Delhi And Ors (2024) where it was held that 20% pre-deposit demand is not a precondition for consideration of a stay application during the pendency of the first appeal.
Case title: Manjit Singh Dhaliwal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 01 New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 19589/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that ignorance of Indian tax laws doesn't constitute “genuine hardship” to condone delay in filing an Income Tax Return (ITR) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus rejected the plea of a Canadian citizen seeking such relief on ground of being unaware of Indian tax requirements and facing difficulties due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Gauhati HC
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rohit Karan Jain
Case Number: ITA/5/2023
The Gauhati High Court stated that retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material and no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT were of the view that the said piece of evidence, i.e. retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material, noted the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami.
Case title: Union of India & Ors. v. Chyawan Prakash Meena
Case no.: Case No. : WA/342/2023
The Gauhati High Court has upheld a single-bench decision asking the Central government to refund the income tax deducted from the salary of a BSF Assistant Commandant belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair passed the direction in view of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prescribes tax exemption to members of recognised Scheduled Tribe communities posted in specified areas.
Gujarat HC
Case Title: M/s Total Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20804 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court stated that the assessee is entitled to the interest on refund under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
“it is true that the assessee is not entitled to interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, however, when the assessee has opted for direct tax for Vivad se Visvas Scheme 2020 and filed the application which was approved by the designated authority and refund order is also passed as per the said scheme on 12/05/2022 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the assessee was entitled to the interest on the amount of refund till the same was paid to the assessee” stated the bench consists of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray.
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and transfer Pricing v. M/s Adani Wilmar Ltd.
Case Number: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 514 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court stated that DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) prevails over Section 206AA of Income Tax Act for TDS on payments to non-residents without PAN.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi was addressing the appeals pertains to alleged short deduction of TDS and raising demand by invoking provisions of section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Income Tax | Manual Filing Of Appeal By NRI Valid For DTVSV Scheme Benefits: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Tejal Mayur Rao v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7839 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court held that the manual filing of an appeal by an NRI is valid for DTVSV (Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024) Scheme Benefits.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi were addressing the case where the petitioner/assessee has challenged the communication issued by the respondent authorities, whereby the declaration made by the assessee under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 ('DTVSV Scheme, 2024'), is rejected on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee was invalid.
Case title: SANDHYA MAULIK PATEL v/s ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Case no.: C/SCA/ 4162/2023
The Gujarat High Court has observed that information available in public domain or any unrelated information seized from the searched person without a connection to the assessee is not enough to be the basis of issuing a show cause notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
A search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted of Land Broker & Financer Group, Ahmedabad on 15.10.2019, wherein digital data/images from the mobile phone of one Dhaval Teli were acquired, based on which notices under Section 153C of the Act were issued to the petitioners on 13.10.2021.
Case title: RAO TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
Case no.: C/SCA /2650/2025
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that reopening of income tax assessment under Section 148 of Income Tax Act based on mere change of opinion without concrete material is not justified, when the return has been threadbare examined during initial assessment and approved without failure of disclosure.
It noted that as per the AO's own findings he was unsure about the actual escaped income which he had said will be finalized only on completion of proceedings, which the court termed as "vague observations".
Case title: RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP v/s THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 SURAT
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19799 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court quashed an order of the tax authorities rejecting a partnership firm's application seeking condonation of 13 day delay in filing income tax return on account of Covid pandemic, observing that authority "did not apply its mind" to the reasons given by the firm.
The petitioner partnership firm engaged in real estate development business had challenged a 27.10.2023 rejecting its application for condonation of delay in filing income tax return for Assessment Year 2021-22 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Case title: VIRAT ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED v/s OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , GANDHINAGAR
Case no.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5039 of 2024 and connected petitions
The Gujarat High Court quashed a Section 153C Income Tax Act proceedings against a company after noting that the assessing officer's satisfaction note did not bear any date and that the note, though recorded in 2022 was "supplied" to the company only in 2024 i.e., after a delay of two years without any explanation.
The petitioner company had on 09.03.2017 filed its revised return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 declaring its income of Rs. Nil. On 25.06.2018, a search was carried out in case of M/s.World Window Group (searched person). It was the case of the petitioner-Company that it has not undertaken any kind of business or transaction with M/s World Window Group (searched person) more particularly, between the period of F.Y 2012-13 to F.Y. 2018-19. The petitioner-company was issued notice dated 24.06.2022 under Section 153(C) of the IT Act and accordingly, the petitioner-company filed its reply on 22.07.2022.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case title: M/s Deluxe Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer
Case no.: ITA No. 23 of 2017 alongwith CWP No.6575 of 2014
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has elucidated the mandatory twin conditions for transfer of an assessee's case under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from one Assessing Officer to another.
A division bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Rakesh Kainthla observed, “The twin conditions to be complied with by the respondents for transferring the case of the appellant/petitioner from respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 are: (i) the assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and (ii) the reasons for transfer should have been recorded.”
Case Name: Neena Singh Thakur v/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case No.: CWP No. 3681 of 2024
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a notice under Section 148 of Income Tax 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, can't be issued by the assessing officer without giving proper reasons.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja : “The Assessing Officer needs to realise that notice under Section 148 does have serious civil or evil consequences and cannot be passed so lightly and reasons for the same have to be recorded in the order itself.”
Case Name: M/s Jaypee University of Information Technology v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Revision Nos. 41 to 44 of 2015
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Assessing officer must provide the university a fair opportunity to present its case and can't take law in his own hand by acting as a Prosecutor, Judge and Executor at the same time.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja: “The Assessing officer took the law into his own hand and played as a Prosecutor, Judge and Executor at the same time.”
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Case Tile: J&K Yateem Foundation vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr
Case No.: WP(C) No. 2118/2025 CM No. 5604/2025
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power to grant stay of an order appealed against even when there is no existing tax demand, and that refusal to consider a stay application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is legally unsustainable.
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem was hearing a writ petition filed by J&K Yateem Foundation, a registered charitable society whose registration under Section 12A/12AB of the Income Tax Act had been cancelled by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions).
Jharkhand HC
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpu vs M/s New Punjab Motor Transport
Case no.: Tax Appeal No. 26 of 2016
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Circuit Bench, Ranchi, after finding that it was solely based on a precedent that had been overruled by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal had earlier deleted the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the payments in question had already been made.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar ruled that the Tribunal's reliance on the Allahabad High Court's decision in CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. was no longer legally tenable in view of the Supreme Court's subsequent judgment in Palam Gas Service v. CIT.
Case Title: Jharkhand Private School Association vs. The State of Jharkhand
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 5455 of 2019
The Jharkhand High Court has partly allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging the Jharkhand Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (First Amendment) Rules, 2019. The Court struck down as unconstitutional the provisions requiring private schools to pay application and inspection fees and to maintain a security deposit for recognition, holding that the State lacked legal authority under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. However, the Court upheld the rules relating to land ownership or long-term lease and minimum land area requirements for private schools.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: The Income Tax Officer & ANR Preeti V
Case No:WRIT APPEAL NO. 1407 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court has said proceedings initiated against an Income Tax Assessee by issuing notice after his demise cannot be continued against his/her legal representative.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja said, “Had the proceedings been initiated against the Assessee during his lifetime, they could have continued against the legal representatives of the deceased Assessee.”
Case Title: Rajkumar Agarwal v. Income Tax Department.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201214 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201213 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201215 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201216 OF 2023
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution initiated by the Income Tax Department against an assessee who had willfully failed to submit his income tax returns in time for the Assessment Years 2012- 13 to 2015-16 and thereby committed the alleged offence.
A single judge, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petitions filed by Rajkumar Agarwal. It said, “Delay in filing of the income tax returns would not only result in payment of penalty, but it also results in prosecution as provided under Chapter 22 of the Act. Therefore, merely for the reason that petitioner has paid the penalty levied by the Competent Authority for the delay in filing of the returns, the same does not exonerate the petitioner from being prosecuted.”
Case Title: The PR. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2023
The Karnataka High Court stated that fair market value of shares determined by statutory methods can't be rejected by the income tax department.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing a case where the revenue has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal where the Tribunal held that the valuation report on DCF Method produced during assessment proceedings was a valid report justifying valuation of shares.
Case Title: M/S. KALPATHARU BREWERIES & DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26031 OF 2017
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Gram Panchayat cannot levy or collect property taxes in respect of Industrial establishments located within areas notified by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any administrative communication cannot vest power in the Gram Panchayat to levy tax in the absence of express delegation or statutory backing.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a batch of petitions and quashing the demand notices issued by the Sompura Gram Panchayat levying property tax on the industrial property of the petitioners located within the notified industrial area established and maintained by the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB).
Karnataka High Court Directs CBDT To Extend Tax Audit Due Date To 31st October
The Karnataka High Court today directed the Central Board of Direct Taxes to extend the due date for filing Tax Audit Reports under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by one month to 31st October, 2025.
The Court took into consideration the difficulties faced and directed the CBDT to extend the due date until the end of October.
Case Title: Sri Mukesh Gupta v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO 283 OF 2022
The Karnataka High Court has held that a loan raised by mortgaging property and advancing to a company does not constitute business expenditure, and the interest is not deductible against salary income.
The bench opined that unless expenditure is incurred in the course of the business or professional service, the assessee is not entitled to a deduction, merely due to it being incurred on the amount borrowed and advanced to the company.
Case Title: Mr. Yash v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 6530 OF 2021 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has held that the search conducted at Actor Yash's residence makes him a 'searched person' under the Income Tax Act, as documents were seized from him, during the search and a panchanama was drawn. Hence, the order under Section 153C of the Act, which applies to persons other than the one originally searched, is without jurisdiction.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar opined that the actor was searched and in the light of the undisputed fact that his premises was searched and documents seized from him and a panchanama was drawn, the sole/unmistakable conclusion/inference that can be arrived at from the material on record is that the actor was a searched person and not a non-searched person / such other person as contemplated under Section 153C of the I.T. Act.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 77 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court stated that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “The role of the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not only that of an adjudicator but also of an investigator and he cannot remain oblivious in the face of a claim without any enquiry.”
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih
Case Number: WA NO. 1413 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that cash in bank account is a 'property' liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that “mere fact that Bank account is not explicitly provided under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, unlike the GST Act, 2017 which specifically mentions the same, cannot lead to the conclusion that Bank account is not liable to be attached under Section 281 B of the Act.”
Case Title: Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WA NO. 712 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that the issue as to whether there was a proper notice or not is a disputed question of fact and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“…As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour Ministry
Case Number: ITA NO. 20 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that principal commissioner has authority to cancel registration of assessee without waiting for decision from assessing authority.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “the provisions of Section 12AA independently empower the Principal Commissioner to consider whether or not the circumstances mentioned in Section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act exist as a pre-condition for directing a cancellation of the registration that was granted to the Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.”
Case Title: M J George (Died) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 1 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that burden of proof is on assessee to prove that he is entitled to capital gains tax exemption on sale of agricultural land.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “it is significant in this regard to observe that the claim of the assessee, being for exemption from the levy of income tax as applicable to capital gains, the burden of proof was on the assessee to show that he was entitled to exemption by virtue of the land sold by him being in the nature of agricultural land.”
Case Title: Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 11 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be under any circumstances construed as a closed remand and there is no requirement to challenge the order under Section 263 separately.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “In as much as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had decided the appeal preferred by the assessee against the revised assessment order on merits, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to have decided the appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceeding. Therefore, the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee as 'not maintainable''.
Case Title: Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A.NO.32 OF 2023
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court stated that the amounts received by an assessee as compensation or enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of his landed property would be treated as income under the head of 'Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “Interest amounts received by an assessee in respect of delayed payment of compensation under the LAA will be treated as accruals to the principal compensation amount and be classified as “Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act. Consequently, the interest amounts will also get the benefit of Section 10 (37) of the I.T. Act if the land compulsorily acquired is agricultural land. Further, since the interest amounts so received are not in the nature of interest as defined under Section 2 (28A), the provisions of Section 56 of the I.T. Act will not be attracted in such cases.”
Case Title: M. M. Varghese v Assistant Director of Income Tax
Case No: WP(C) 19152 of 2024
The Kerala High Court on Friday (2ndMay) held that it need not interfere with the action of the Income Tax Department seizing Rs. 1 Crore Rupees from the bank account of CPI(M) Thrissur District Committee in the Bank of India branch in Thrissur The Income-Tax Department had in the days leading up to the 2024 Lok Sabha election, froze the bank account on the ground that there was a mismatch in the annual returns filed by the party. The petition challenging this action was filed by M. M. Varghese, the former Secretary of the District Committee.
“The pleadings and the materials placed for consideration do not indicate any malafides…..Hence, the satisfaction arrived at by the respondents to initiate the search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act cannot be held to be perverse or legally untenable. Considering the scope of interference under 226 with a proceeding under 132 of the Act, this Court is of the view that the search and seizure proceedings initiated by the respondents do not warrant any interference at this juncture,” ordered Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Title: Anandan N. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 11709 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no provision of rejecting the appeal merely on non-appearance of assessee and the appellate authority must decide an appeal by strictly following the mandate contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that “evidently, going by Subsection 6 of Section 250, no other meaning can be assigned to the words “points for determination” as it obviously leads to the question that arises for consideration based on the contentions raised in the appeal. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to refer to the points raised in the appeal, and to determine the same by supplying reasons for such determination.”
Case Title: Union of India v. Aayana Charitable Trust
Case Number: W.A.NO.2042 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that Section 245C of Income Tax Act does not require prior cut-off date; pending 153A/153C notice sufficient for settlement application.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “when Section 245C does not prescribe any prior cut-off date for an assessee to satisfy the requirements for filing an application before the Interim Board for Settlement, and the only statutory requirement is that the assessee should have a pending 'case' at the time of filing the application for settlement, then so long as the assessee had a 'live and un-adjudicated' notice under Sections 153A/153C as on the date of filing the application, the application had to be considered on merits by the Board.”
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Ayyappa Roller Flour Mills Ltd.
Case Number: ITA NO. 9 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that assessment based on DVO's (Department Valuation Officer) valuation cannot be revised under Section 263 of Income Tax Act in absence of concrete material.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that “as on the date of invoking his power under Section 263 of the IT Act, the Commissioner could not have had a 'reason to believe' that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue since the material to inform that 'reason to believe' did not exist on the date of issuance of the show cause notice. His exercise of power under S.263 was therefore clearly unjustified”.
Case Title: Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO.9318 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that assessment proceedings against deceased person invalid without notice to legal heirs under Section 93 CGST Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. addressed the issue where the wife of the deceased, challenged the GST DRC-07 summary order issued in the name of her deceased husband.
Case Title: Mr. Thomas Joseph v. Union of India
Case Number: WA NO. 430 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has allowed the settlement application under Section 245A of the Income Tax Act filed beyond cutoff date, while citing Supreme Court's COVID limitation order.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj referred to the order of Supreme Court in MA. Nos.665 of 2021 [In Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation] and stated that the assessee had filed the application for settlement on 17.03.2022, which is well within the time granted by the Supreme Court taking note of the Covid pandemic situation.
Case Title: Salim Aboobacker v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 12164 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court held that proceedings under Section 148A of Income Tax Act not sustainable if escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs and notice issued after 3-years.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “when the order of the assessing authority is found to be without jurisdiction and hit by the period of limitation, it is not necessary to relegate the party concerned to undergo the rigor of the statutory proceedings”.
Case Title: Keerampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15933 OF 2022
The Kerala High Court quashed Income Tax proceedings under Section 148 against co-operative society initiated on cancelled PAN.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the transactions pertain to the relevant assessment year were carried out based on the PAN card that was then in existence, which was later cancelled. By the time the proceedings of assessment were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148, the assessee was issued with a new PAN card, wherein, the status of the assessee was shown as the AOP (Association of Persons).
Case Title: Mediacloud Studio Private Limited v. The Assessment Unit
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17312 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that reply to one SCN on old email cannot justify non-service of subsequent notice on updated email.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “one of the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was indeed served to the assessee in the old email ID, which was after updating the email ID. The assessee also submitted a response to the said notice as well. However, that by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions put forward by the assessee.”
Case Title: A One Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 14218 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has upheld triple tax on unauthorised construction due to lack of proof of deemed permit.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “in the absence of any documents indicating the submission of application for permit and inaction on the part of the Panchayat in considering the said application, the contention of the assessee as to the deemed permit cannot be accepted.”
Case Title: Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO.12516 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that the powers of revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is confined to reviewing existing orders, and the authority cannot issue directions to the assessing authority. Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner to revise certain orders.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that powers conferred upon the revisional authority are confined to examine the sustainability of an order passed under the provisions of the Act and it does not extend to issuing orders to the assessing authority without reference to any order so passed.
Case Title: Perinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem
Case Number: W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that property tax can't be levied without following statutory assessment procedure under Section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that without complying with the procedural formalities required to bring the rate of tax and the measure of tax to the knowledge of the prospective assessees, the levy of property tax cannot be seen as having come into existence vis-a-vis those assessees.
No Violation Of Article 14 In Denying Property Tax Exemption To Unaided Schools: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24012 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no violation of Article 14 in denying property tax exemption to unaided schools.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the fact that the Government owned, managed and aided schools are established by the Government at their funds in order to provide education to all classes of persons by collecting nil or meagre fees, is a crucial factor which distinguishes such establishments from an unaided school, where fees is collected from the students for rendering the services.
Case Title: Mrs. Sainaba Hamza Koya v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40744 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that to claim the Section 54F deduction under the Income Tax Act, the assessee must satisfy the authorities that borrowed funds were used at their own risk with the intention to be repaid with capital gains.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that "...even in a case where, the residential building was purchased, or it was constructed utilising the borrowed funds or funds from other sources, there is an obligation on the part of the Assessee to satisfy the authorities that, the funds were spent by the assessee either through borrowing or arranging from other sources at his/her own risks and costs, in anticipation of or with an intention to appropriate the income to be subjected to capital gain tax, for such purchase or construction…"
Case Title: Sravan Kumar Neela v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 58 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that voluntarily filed returns cannot be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963). Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the Tribunal to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that since returns have been presented by the respective appellants, declaring the respective figures as income from other sources, at the belated stage of the second appeal to the Tribunal, if the venture of the appellants is accepted, that would lead to the revision of the returns voluntarily filed, which is not possible under the statute.
Case Title: Dr. K.M. Ashik v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.200 OF 2019
The Kerala High Court held that the assessee is free to challenge the cash credit addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in remand proceedings; the tribunal's directions are not binding.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the observation made by the Tribunal is not to be taken as a positive-binding direction on the assessing authority after the remand. An assessment with reference to the provisions of Section 68 is required to be made only when the assessee has no explanation as regards the cash credits in his books of accounts. In the case at hand, the appellant-assessee seems to have offered explanations, with reference to its dealings with the Company, which are more or less business transactions between parties.
Case Title: Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 42 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that the non-production of Form 3CL is not material suppression and is not a valid ground to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that it was for the assessing authority to be satisfied with the deduction for the expenditure claimed by the assessee company. Form 3CL, before the amendment, only allowed the assessee to claim expenditure subject to verification of such expenditure by the assessing authority. It is only after the amendment in the year 2016 that the law mandates that the prescribed authority has to certify allowable expenditure for deduction.
Case Title: Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19544 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that the limitation under Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act does not apply to RDDB Act (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) proceedings.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. stated that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, has no mandatory application to recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act. It is also relevant that under Sections 19(22) and 25 of the RDDB Act, the Recovery Officer derives jurisdiction to initiate recovery measures only after the recovery certificate attains finality. Hence, the time frame in Rule 68B, which is linked to the 'order giving rise to demand' under the Income Tax Act, cannot logically apply to proceedings initiated upon a recovery certificate under the RDDB Act.
Case Title: Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT
Case Number: ITA NO.51 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that closing individual debtor accounts is not mandatory for bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the deduction of bad debts. It allows the taxpayer to claim a deduction for bad debts that have been written off in the books of accounts during the previous financial year.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon, after referring to the case of Vijaya Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, opined that there is no requirement for the individual debtor's account to be closed for claiming a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TA NO. 55 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be invoked where the Assessing Officer (AO) fails to address a core issue in the assessment order.
The bench opined that the main issue does not appear to have been addressed by the assessing authority while issuing an order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the assessment order does not appear to have addressed the issue with reference to the competing provisions, exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act was justified.
Case Title: M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 63 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked when Assessing Officer (AO) allowed deduction under Section 32AC after proper inquiry.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that merely for the reason that AO extended the deduction claimed after carrying out investigations, the exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act is not required. At worst, the revisional authority can correct the error, if any, committed by the AO, by holding that the extension of the benefit of deduction was erroneous, with reference to the purchase of the assets during the previous years.
Kerala High Court Quashes Income Tax Appellate Order Against AMMA, Directs Fresh Consideration
Case Title: M/S Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) v Commissioner of Income Tax
Case No: WP(C) 39703/ 2025
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), against the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), holding that the appellate authority failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A A, observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by rejecting AMMA's appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance, without addressing the merits of the case as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Vittal Sait Popat v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 4193 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court has held that disclosure of income and payment of tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not preclude initiation of proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that the fact that the assessees have disclosed the income in the return and the same was proceeded against under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, by itself, cannot be a reason to interfere with the proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Case Title: Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 7053 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that co-operative societies not engaged in banking are not entitled to TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) exemption under section 194A (3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was dealing with a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the proviso to section 194A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which imposed a restriction, based on the gross receipts or turnover of the Societies, in the matter of exemption from the obligation to make TDS from the income as the interest on deposits.
Case Title: Anish Thomas v. The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 33642 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after finding that the assessee missed the hearing due to the non-functional video-conference link (VC link) and because the hearing link was emailed at an odd hour, i.e., at 3:13 a.m. CDT (Central Daylight Time) while he was in the U.S.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the assessee could not utilise the opportunities for reasons beyond his control. Therefore, the assessee can be granted another opportunity for a hearing.
Case Title: State Bank Of India v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.45 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that the State Bank of India (SBI) cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act for not deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on Leave Travel Concession (LTC) payments, as it was bound by an interim order which prohibited such deduction.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the SBI, having been restrained by an interim order of the High Court from deducting TDS, could be held to be an assessee in default under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act,1961, for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments.
Case Title: Save A Family Plan (India) v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 81 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that a tribunal cannot travel beyond the grounds not cited by the commissioner while exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that only one reason was highlighted by the Commissioner for exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act and the Tribunal having found the said reason as not a valid one, the Tribunal should have stopped there rather than making further observations as regards the sustainability or otherwise of the extension of the benefits under Section 11 of the Act through the assessment order.
Case Title: Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27452 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that income derived from public religious/charitable trusts is not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that income derived from properties belonging to the deity or temple does not become the income of the administrative body merely because the body manages the institution. The administrative body must independently establish that the income claimed is its own statutory income in order to attract the exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.
Interest On Delayed Agricultural Income Tax Not Deductible U/S 37 Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Aspinwall and Company Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.5 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court has held that interest on delayed agricultural income tax is not deductible under Section 37 Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the interest paid on account of the delayed payment of Agricultural Income Tax is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Thekkee Cherupillil Sarada v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 43816 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an Income Tax Appeal cannot be rejected solely for the assessee's non-appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that none of the provisions in Section 250 of the Income Tax Act permit the appellate authority to reject the appeal on the ground of non-appearance of the assessee/appellant, without going into the merits of the case.
Case Title: The South Indian Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA NO.64 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that once a bank accepts valid Form 15H declarations from senior citizen depositors under Section 197A(1C) of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be treated as an “assessee in default” for non-deductions of TDS (deduct tax at source) on interest income.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the bank (appellant) has to be treated as an assessee in default for failure to deduct TDS on interest income paid to senior citizens who have furnished declarations in Form 15H.
Case Title: Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. v. State Of Kerala
Case Number: OTC NO.1 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that expenditure incurred on the upkeep and maintenance of rubber trees, including expenses relating to replantation and replacement, is revenue in nature and therefore allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon were examining the issue regarding the entitlement of the assessee for deduction of the expenditure incurred by it for replantation/ replacement of rubber trees as well as their upkeep with reference to the provisions of the AIT Act, read with the provisions of Rule 7A of the Income Tax Rules,1962.
Madras HC
Case Title: Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others
Case No: W.P.Nos.25223 & 25227 of 2024
The Madras High Court recently clarified that both the Faceless Assessment Officer and Jurisdictional Assessment Officer have concurrent jurisdiction as far as assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made it clear that for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction. The court added that in matters of international taxation, central Circle charges and search and seizure cases also, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction and the FAO, in such cases, did not have jurisdiction to make assessment, re-assessment or re-computation.
Case Title: M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Case Number: T.C.(A).No.493 of 2013
The Madras High Court while referring to sections 43B and 40A Income Tax Act explained which provision prevails when both commence with a non-obstante clause.
The Division Bench of Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan stated that “the Rule that a general provision should yield to specific provision springs from the common understanding that when two directions are given one encompassing a large number of matters in general and another to only some, the latter directions should prevail as being more specific in nature.”
Case Title: Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P.No.18560 of 2023
The Madras High Court held that digital marketing is a business and not a profession; and an audit report is not required for turnovers below Rs. 5 crores.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. In the event anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which is below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee is not required to file an audit report and they are exempted.”
Case Title: M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA No.340 of 2016
The Madras High Court stated that the Income Tax commissioner cannot revise an assessment merely because detailed reasoning was not given in the order.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan stated that, "an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If the Income Tax Officer, acting in accordance with law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, simply because, according to the Commissioner, the order should have been written more elaborately."
Orissa HC
Case title: Binod Pattanayak v. Union of India
Case no.: CRLMC No.3284 of 2023
The Orissa High Court has refused to entertain a petition filed for quashing the offence under Sections 276(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the Petitioner-accused should have sought compounding of the offence.
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed, “In the present regime, where the compounding of the offence is permissible, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not be necessarily invoked by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner may resort to the procedural remedy under Section 320 Cr.P.C. by relying upon the Circular dated 17.10.2024 and seek for compounding of the offences complained off against him by the Revenue.”
Rajasthan HC
Case Title: Sharda Devi Chhajer v. Union of India and others
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11787/2024
The Rajasthan High Court stated that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacks jurisdiction to issue income tax reassessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman observed that “the JAO shall not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as it would not only render Section 151A weak, but may also lead to its diminishing activation.”
Title: M/s Fortune Infovision Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: Civil Writ Petition No. 11431/2018
Rajasthan High Court set aside prosecution under Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), against the petitioner-company whose business activity related to e-commerce transactions, and owing to delay on part of the companies like Amazon, Naaptol, Ebay, etc. in submitting the bills, the petitioner got delayed by almost 10 months in submitting the deducted TDS.
The division bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma and Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that since the TDS was deposited voluntarily by the petitioner, that too along with interest for delay, no case was made out against the petitioner-company.
Case Title: Giriraj Pugalia v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: Civil Writ Petition No. 3152/2025
Rajasthan High Court denied interference with initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) that were alleged to be initiated merely based on certain WhatsApp Chats, observing that the information in the chats were completely corroborated by specific transactions and hence, the said chat could be considered to be falling under the definition of “other documents” under Section 153C.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali ruled that the ambit of Section 153C was not to restrict the proceedings in relation to 'other person' arising out of Section 153A but to enable such invocation such that in case there was any connecting evidence which was specific and corroborated by facts, no escape was possible for such 'other person'.
Title: Tax Bar Association, Bhilwara v UOI & Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court has extended the deadline for filing the Tax Audit Report by one month. A division bench of Justice (Dr.) Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta at the Rajasthan High Court extended the deadline under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by 1 (one) month beyond September 30, 2025.
It was submitted that in the previous years, CBDT had consistently granted such extensions in similar circumstances, and refusal to grant the same in the present situation was arbitrary, unreasonable, and a violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others
Case No: W.P.Nos.25223 & 25227 of 2024
The Madras High Court recently clarified that both the Faceless Assessment Officer and Jurisdictional Assessment Officer have concurrent jurisdiction as far as assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made it clear that for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction. The court added that in matters of international taxation, central Circle charges and search and seizure cases also, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction and the FAO, in such cases, did not have jurisdiction to make assessment, re-assessment or re-computation.
Case Title: M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Case Number: T.C.(A).No.493 of 2013
The Madras High Court while referring to sections 43B and 40A Income Tax Act explained which provision prevails when both commence with a non-obstante clause.
The Division Bench of Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan stated that “the Rule that a general provision should yield to specific provision springs from the common understanding that when two directions are given one encompassing a large number of matters in general and another to only some, the latter directions should prevail as being more specific in nature.”
Case Title: Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P.No.18560 of 2023
The Madras High Court held that digital marketing is a business and not a profession; and an audit report is not required for turnovers below Rs. 5 crores.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. In the event anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which is below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee is not required to file an audit report and they are exempted.”
Case Title: M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA No.340 of 2016
The Madras High Court stated that the Income Tax commissioner cannot revise an assessment merely because detailed reasoning was not given in the order.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan stated that, "an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If the Income Tax Officer, acting in accordance with law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, simply because, according to the Commissioner, the order should have been written more elaborately."
Case Title: D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.(MD)Nos.30938
The Madras High Court has held that under the new regime, approval from a higher authority, such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General, is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after the expiry of a three-year limitation period.
Justice C. Saravanan stated that …three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, to issue Section 148 Notice under the new regime had already expired on 31.03.2020, 31.03.2021 and 31.03.2022. However, Section 148 Notices were issued for these Assessment Years only on 29.07.2022 with approval from the Principal Commissioner instead of approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner in terms of amended provisions as in force for the period in dispute were in time…
Case Title: Sivestar Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
Case Number: W.P.No.6814 of 2025
The Madras High Court held that delay in filing Form 10B required under Section 44AB for the purpose of Section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not a ground to deny legitimate exemption tax exemptions.
Justice C. Saravanan observed that the assessee was registered as a “Trust” in the year 2017. Effectively, the assessee would have carried on operation as a “Trust” from 01.04.2017 onwards, which would fall under the Assessment Year 2018-2019.
Case Title: M/s. Lucky Footwear Components v. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank
Case Number: C.R.P.No.5237 of 2025
The Madras High Court held that an auction under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) Act, 1957, is valid when the property is valued by a valuer and registered under Section 34AB of the Wealth-Tax Act.
Chief Justice Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan opined that out of the two valuation reports placed before the Tribunal, if the Tribunal has accepted the valuation made by approved valuer, registered under the provision of Wealth-Tax Act, it cannot be said to be patently illegal or perverse so as to interfere in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA Nos.794 and 795 of 2016
The Madras High Court has held that depreciation on payment to State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) for infrastructure development is not allowed, but the assessee is eligible for 5% annual revenue deduction.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan were addressing the appeal pertaining to the claim of depreciation on the sum paid to the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) for the development of infrastructural facilities.
Madras High Court Orders New PAN For Assessee After Dept-Issued Duplicate PAN Ruins CIBIL Score
Case Title: S. Senthil v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P.No.21548 of 2022
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a fresh PAN (Permanent Account Number) to the assessee, who suffered adverse consequences because the defaulter holding the same PAN had a bad CIBIL. The bench held that the assessee cannot be made to bear serious CIBIL consequences arising from the Income Tax Department's duplicate PAN allotment.
Justice C. Saravanan stated that the PAN that was allotted to the assessee on 18.05.2007 was also erroneously allotted to the said person, namely Subramaniyan Senthil S/o. Subramaniyan. Although the said person has been given a new identity, the mistakes committed by the said person have affected the assessee, as the identity of the assessee and his financial transactions are traceable to the PAN that was originally allotted to the assessee on 18.05.2007, which is in the cloud.
Case Title: Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA Nos.277 to 280 of 2016
The Madras High Court has held that payment for IPLC (International Private Leased Circuits) Services does not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan examined whether the payment made by the assessee for IPLC services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of a payment made to a foreign-based company.
Case Title: M/s. Devaraj & Others v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: TCA Nos. 319 of 2016 and 538 of 2021
The Madras High Court has held that the rectification power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is akin to the review power under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and is limited to rectifying any mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal cannot re-adjudicate issues or modify its original order under the guise of rectification.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan stated that when the power under section 254(2) is akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the scope and ambit of rectification/review could be only within the contours provided under the provision. When the provision only allows for rectification for any errors apparent on the face of the record, the mistake should be discernible on the face of the record without requiring any elaborate enquiry or reasoning. In the garb of rectification, the issue cannot be re-adjudicated, and a fresh order cannot be passed effacing the original order, which is clearly impermissible.
Case Title: Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA No. 394 of 2012
The Madras High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is valid if the original order is completely silent on the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar stated that the original order of assessment is wholly silent in regard to the claim under Section 80HHC. Normally, when an order of assessment is passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, there is a presumption that the issues raised for consideration in the return of income have been duly taken note of by the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: Shri. Harigovind v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Non-corporate
Case Number: W.P.Nos.23014 of 2023
The Madras High Court held that the notices under Section 153C are unsustainable where a search for 'other person' was initiated after 01.04.2021.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that the first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 153C is not only for the purpose of abatement but also for all other purposes, viz., initiation of search for other person in terms of Section 153C(3) of the Act. In such a case, the date of initiation of search for the assessee is the date on which the documents were handed over to the JAO of the assessee, i.e., 25.11.2022 is the date of initiation of search for the assessee.
Case Title: The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: T.C.A.No.285 of 2021
The Madras High Court held that the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee under a government rehabilitation scheme is a capital receipt and is not taxable as revenue.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan examined whether the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee from the Government under the rehabilitation scheme should be treated as a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee or as a capital receipt, taking it out of the purview of the taxable income.
Case Title: K.M. Mammen v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P. No. 24029 of 2025
The Madras High Court held that once the assessee's entitlement to compounding had attained finality through earlier orders, then the Income Tax Department could not apply the revised Compounding Guidelines.
Justice C. Saravanan referred to the Explanation to Section 279(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and noted that the new compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 bearing reference F.No.285/08/2014-IT (Inv.V) would apply, only if a new application is/was filed in terms of paragraph 3.2 of the said guidelines.
Orissa HC
Case Title: Rajnandani Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 & Ors.
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 206 of 2023
The Patna High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in restoring an addition of ₹1.91 crore under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act after reversing a reasoned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), where the assessee had produced documentary evidence and the Assessing Officer's remand report did not disclose any adverse material.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman held that the Tribunal interfered with the appellate order without demonstrating perversity, misreading of evidence, or application of an incorrect legal standard, and in doing so, effectively placed a burden on the assessee beyond what is contemplated under Section 68 of the Act.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title: M/s King Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana
Case Number: ITA-96-2012 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that re-assessment proceedings beyond four years are invalid when the original assessment has been finalised under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. In case of an Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, a scrutiny is carried out to confirm the correctness and genuineness of various claims, deductions, etc., made by the taxpayer in the return of income.
Justices Lisa Gill and Meenakshi I. Mehta stated that the assessing officer has the power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income assessment. Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act is preceded by notice, inquiry and hearing under Section 142(1), (2) and (3), as well as under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and another
Case Number: CWP-28440-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) to issue a circular extending the ITR (Income Tax Return) due date for audit cases to 30.11.2025 for the Assessment Year 2025-2026.
Justices Lisa Gill and Meenakshi I. Mehta were addressing a petition filed by the assessee/petitioner seeking a direction to the Central Board of Direct Taxes to extend the due date for filing of tax audit reports for a reasonable period from 30.09.2025 and, consequently, to further extend the due date for filing tax returns.
Case title: Bhupinder Singh v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Chandigarh and others
Case no.: CWP-29843-2025
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of income tax assessment jurisdiction from Chandigarh to Panaji, Goa, holding that the Revenue authorities acted within their powers under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the transfer was justified in public interest to facilitate coordinated investigation.
Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji said, "absence of allegations of mala fide on the respondent's part the transfer of the petitioner's assessment jurisdiction from Chandigarh to Goa has been exercised by the revenue for its administrative convenience; to facilitate effective investigation and coordinated assessment; for efficient collection of tax and in public interest. Prior thereto, principles of natural justice were duly followed and that the transfer order also contains adequate and acceptable reasons."
Case Title: Bhupinder Singh v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Chandigarh and others
Case Number: CWP-29843-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the transfer of assessment jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act is valid where cases are inter-linked, and centralisation is required for effective investigation and public interest.
Justices Deepaksibal and Lapita Banerji stated that in the absence of allegations of mala fide on the department's part, the transfer of the assessee's assessment jurisdiction from Chandigarh to Goa has been exercised by the revenue for its administrative convenience; to facilitate effective investigation and coordinated assessment; for efficient collection of tax and in public interest. Prior thereto, principles of natural justice were duly followed and that the transfer order also contains adequate and acceptable reasons.
Rajasthan HC
Title: Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has come down heavily on the Revenue Department for being “rigid and adamant” to transfer the case of the petitioner from Udaipur to Delhi under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the coordinate bench's earlier decision that quashed the same order.
The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Ravi Chirania stated that when the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were pending for more than 6 years, the department must be more concerned with examining and deciding the issue as per law, instead of making the assessee a “shuttlecock”.
Sikkim HC
Case title: Dr. Doma T. Bhutia v. Union Of India & Another
Case no.: WP (PIL) No. 01/2025
The Sikkim High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the definition 'Sikkimese' under the Income Tax Act, which was slightly expanded by way of an amendment in terms of the Finance Act, 2023.
A division bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai upheld the vires of Explanation (v) contained under clause (26AAA) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 39 Of 2022
Case Titled: Zydus Healthcare Ltd. (Earlier M/S Zydus Healthcare, Sikkim (Firm)] Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Gangtok
The Sikkim High Court stated that when the reassessment notice itself is illegal, issued without jurisdiction, or beyond the time limit prescribed under the Income Tax Act, the Court can directly examine the validity of the notice under Article 226, even though an appeal under the Act is otherwise available.
A Single Bench of the Sikkim High Court, comprising Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, held that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the challenge goes to the very jurisdiction of reassessment notice under Sections 148 and 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2) Gangtok
Case No.: Tax App. No. 02 of 2025
The Sikkim High Court has held that a non-bank co-operative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on interest income earned from investments made with co-operative banks, and that Section 80P(4) does not bar such deduction.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai allowed the tax appeal filed by the Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (SIMFED) and set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, which had denied the benefit.
Telangana HC
Case Title: M/s. Modi Builders & Realtors (P) Ltd. and Others v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-16 (2), Hyderabad, and Others
Case Number: Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No.167 of 2012
The Telangana High Court stated that open terrace/portico excluded while computing build-up area for determining eligibility for deduction under section 80-IB of Income Tax Act.
The Bench consists of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda was addressing the issue of whether the terrace / balcony that is in the form of open to sky or portico / porch area without walls could be added while computing the built-up area for the purpose of determining the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur v. Rajan Rajesh Kumar
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 12 OF 2024
The Uttarakhand High Court held that once a proposal for reopening an assessment under Section 148 is rejected by the competent authority, repeated representations of the same proposal are impermissible and without jurisdiction.
Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay examined whether the multiple presentations / repeated re-presentation of the proposal for initiation of proceedings under Section 148 to the Competent Authority under Section 151, is permissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: OYO Hotels vs Principal CIT
Case Number: ITA No.2611/Del/2024
The Delhi ITAT held that the transactions between holding and its wholly owned subsidiary entity towards issuance of shares are not covered within ambit of Sec 56(2)(viib) in absence of any benefit arising from such transactions.
Referring to the Coordinate Benchs, the Bench of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) reiterated that Sec 56(2)(viib) would not apply in the present case where the transaction is between the assessee (subsidiary company) with its 100% holding company as issuance of share.
Case Title: Shah Rukh Khan vs Deputy CIT
Case Number: ITA No.6312/MUM/2024
The Mumbai ITAT has quashed the reopening of assessment proceedings against the Assessee/ Appellant i.e., Shah Rukh Khan for AY 2012-13.
The tribunal held that the reasons recorded while initiating the re-assessment, were completely silent as regards the allegation that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Case title: Kapil Dev Nikhanj v. ACIT
Case no.: ITA No. 1770/Del/2023
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi allowed renowned cricketer Kapil Dev to claim exemption on Rs. 1.5 crore one-time benefit granted to him by the BCCI in 2013, in recognition of his services.
Noting that the cricketer had offered the amount for tax under ignorance, bench of M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and MS Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) said, “It is trite law that right amount of tax should be collected from the right person in accordance with law. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax could be collected except by an authority of law. When a statute specifically provides a particular exemption of a particular receipt from tax, the said receipt cannot be brought to tax merely because the assessee had offered erroneously in the return of income.”
Case title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 2(2), Mumba
Case no.: ITA No.5653/MUM/2011
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has granted relief to the Indian Hotels Company Ltd, which owns the Taj hotels chain and set aside an addition of ₹8,22,25,142/- made by the Assessing Officer to its declared income of ₹107,74,26,414/- for the AY 1998-99.
The Tribunal quashed the reopening basis the incorrect invocation of Clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act since the original assessment had already been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of the Assessee.
ITAT Rejects Revenue's Appeal Seeking To Make ₹63.21 Billion Addition To DLF's Income For AY 2017-18
Case title: DCIT v. DLF Limited
Case no.: I.T.A. Nos. 711/Del/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Revenue against an order of the National Faceless Centre (CIT(A)), deleting aggregate ₹63,02,13,86,035 addition made to income of real estate giant DLF Limited on various counts, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
In its 82-page judgement, the Tribunal also disposed of the company's appeal against confirmation of addition made by CIT(A) on account of unverified purchase transactions, by remitting the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the same afresh.
Transferor Not Liable U/S 56(2) Of Income Tax Act For Undervalued Property Sale To Spouse: ITAT
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Chennai v. M. Mahadevan
Case Number: ITA No.1824/Chny/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai stated that transferor not liable under Section 56(2) Of Income Tax Act for undervalued property sale to spouse.
The Bench of SS Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) observed that “the hypothesis propounded by the Ld.AO is flawed and not supported by the statutory stipulations governing the matter. It is true that the wife of the assessee has acquired a property for an amount significantly lower than its actual reported value. However, the said transactions would make the wife of the assessee liable for additional taxation within the meanings of Section-56(2). Stretching the transaction and implicating assessee into it does not appears to be the correct line of action”.
Case Title: Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA No.:3013/CHNY/2024
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that S.148 Income Tax notice issued after 31.03.2021 under old regime invalid despite TOLA [Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020] extension.
George George K. (Vice President) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that due to COVID-19, the Government introduced the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA), extending time limits. Accordingly, the time available for the Department to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act under Old Regime, falling during the period from 20.03.2020 till 31.03.2021, were extended till 30.06.2021.
Case Title: Sivakarthick Raman v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA No.:281/Chny/2025
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that salary received by Chinese resident for the services in China not taxable in India, even if credited to the Indian bank account.
Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that “the AO has disallowed the exemption claimed with respect to salary received in India for services rendered in China as taxable in India since the salary has been credited by BMW India Pvt Ltd into the assessee's account at Chennai from the payroll account of Chennai……. The salary income for services rendered in China has been rightly offered tax by the assessee in China.”
Case title: Indian National Congress All India Congress Committee v. DCIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi
Case no.: ITA No.1609/Del/2023
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the Indian National Congress seeking income tax exemption for the income of ₹199.15 crore during the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal rejected the party's claim for exemption on the ground that there was a violation of the conditions in Section 13A of the Income Tax Act. The returns were filed late, the ITAT noted. Calling for a strict interpretation of the exemption clause, the ITAT observed that "the moment there is violation of such a “due” date, section 13A 3rd proviso gets attracted, so as to result in denial of exemption to the political party concerned."
Widow Eligible To Claim TDS Credit On Deceased Husband's Income: ITAT
Case Title: Lovely Das v. Addl/JCIT, Nashik
Case Number: I.T.A. Nos.: 291, 292, 293 & 294/KOL/2025
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that widow eligible to claim TDS credit on deceased husband's income.
Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) stated as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 37BA and sub-rule 3(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if the income is assessable in the hands of any other person, the credit of TDS shall be given to him for the year in which the income is shown.
Case Title: Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana v. ITO, Ward-1 (9) Ahmedabad
Case Number: ITA No.1014/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that rebate under section 87A available on short-term capital gains under section 111A under new regime.
Suchitra R. Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) stated that on a plain reading of the statutory provisions, there exists no express bar either in section 87A or section 111A for denial of rebate in respect of tax payable on short-term capital gains arising from transfer of listed equity shares taxable at special rates under section 111A. The legislative intent is further clarified by the subsequent amendment proposed in the Finance Bill, 2025, which is prospective in nature and thereby reinforces that no such restriction was in force during the relevant assessment year.
Property Transfer Between Spouses Without Actual Consideration Not Taxable As Capital Gains: ITAT
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.957/Del/2025
The New Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that property transfer between spouses without actual consideration is not taxable as capital gains.
S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) were dealing with the issue arises out of addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-, being consideration amount mentioned in conveyance deed, executed by late Sunil Kumar, as received, from his wife Bimila Devi, who was alleged purchaser.
Wedding Gifts Can't Be Automatically Treated As 'Unexplained Income' Without Evidence: ITAT
Case Title: Manubhai Dahyabhai Bhoi v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No.779/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that wedding gifts can't be automatically treated as unexplained income without evidence.
Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) stated that the fact that marriage gifts were received prior to the date of marriage itself could not lead to the conclusion that the same are not genuine, when a complete lists of persons from whom the gifts were received was duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and no specific defect had been pointed out with respect to the lists of persons so furnished by the assessee.
Case Title: Ankit Gems Private Limited v. Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai
Case Number: ITA No. 3097/MUM/2025
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that the assessee is not required to prove negative once documentary evidence is produced.
Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) stated the assessee cannot be made to prove the negative stance for which has been taken by it, right from the very first hearing by bringing on record all the corroborative documentary evidence in respect of its actual and real purchase made by it, forming part of the books of accounts.
Case Title: Pradeep Jeyavelu v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No.1626/Chny/2025
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that sale proceeds of a minor's property share deposited under court order are excluded from father's taxable income.
S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) held that the assessee cannot decide the utilization of his minor daughter's share as it is deposited as per Court's order and it is impossible to club the same in the assessee's (father) hand.
Assessment Order Not Void Solely Because It Was Passed in Deceased's Name: ITAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Late Shri Lakha Singh Through Legal Heir Hira Singh Dera v ITO, Kurukshetra
Case Number: ITA No. 1151/Chd/ 2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, recently held that an appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), reassessing the income tax liability of an assessee, is not invalid merely because it was issued in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal noted that since the appeal itself was filed under the deceased's name, the order cannot be quashed on that ground alone.
Judicial Member Laliet Kumar and Accountant Member Manoj Kumar Aggarwal observed, “since the appeal before the CIT(A) itself was instituted in the name of Sh. Lakha Singh and not in the name of his legal heir, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be held to be vitiated merely because it was passed in the name of the deceased. Assuming for a moment that the order of the CIT(A) were to be treated as erroneous for this reason, even in that eventuality the order of the Assessing Officer would remain undisturbed and would continue to operate against the assessee”.
Mumbai ITAT Quashes ₹445 Crore Transfer Pricing Adjustment Against Netflix India
Case title: Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 23(1), Mumbai
Case no.: ITA No.6857/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has recently set aside a Rs 445 crore transfer pricing adjustment on Netflix India for financial year 2021-22, rejecting the Revenue's claim that the company, as a licensee of its streamed content, owed higher taxes.
The authorities had imposed the tax because they treated Netflix India, the Indian arm of US-based streaming giant Netflix, as a licensee of Netflix US's intellectual property. They claimed the company owed deemed royalty and license fees for using the content library and proprietary streaming technology in India, far higher than Netflix India's declared fixed profit of just 1.36% on Indian sales.
Case Title: M/s. Lakshmiammal Progressive Educational Trust v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.: 2193/CHNY/2025
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an independent enquiry or verification by the department is mandatory before treating charitable donations as involuntary.
George George K (Vice President) stated that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) treated the donations as not voluntary donation and sustained the addition made by the AO. The FAA has not carried out any independent enquiry or verification to ascertain whether donations are voluntary or not. The findings of the FAA appear to rest on presumptions, surmises, and conjectures, rather than on any concrete material or evidence.
Case Title: ACIT v. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan
Case Number: ITA No.5403/MUM/2025 (A.Y.2022-23)
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted Rs. 4.6 Crore disallowance made under Section 14A Income Tax Act, against Aishwarya Rai Bachchan in a high-profile income tax case.
The case was heard by bench comprising of Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Renu Jauhri (Accountant Member) regarding the disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act.
CASE NUMBER: ITA NO. 760/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19)
CASE TITLED: SANJAY KOTHARI (HUF) VS. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
On November 17th, 2025 the Bench of Shri Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) of the ITAT Mumbai partly allowed the appeal holding that the disallowance under Section 14A (Expenditure for exempt income) r/w Rule 8D cannot exceed the actual expenditure of ₹69,455 incurred by the assessee, and that the excess refund of ₹1,26,32,970 received on return of capital advance retained its character as a capital receipt and could not be taxed as income.
The assessee had preferred an appeal before ITAT, Mumbai being aggrieved by the Order passed by the CIT(Appeals), whereby the CIT(A) further affirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer, observing that the excess refund of advance received from the Karta, Shri Sanjay Kothari (in his individual capacity), as taxable income in the hands of the HUF.
CASE NUMBER: ITA NO. 6680/MUM/2024
CASE TITLED: LOGWIN AIR & OCEAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has held that once the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is accepted for benchmarking all international transactions, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot cherry-pick only the management fee and assign an Arm's Length Price (ALP) at NIL.
In the case in hand, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the ITAT seeking deletion of the Transfer Pricing adjustment on management fees and the consequential enhancement of income, being aggrieved by the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1994.
Case Name: Anupama Agarwal vs. DCIT
Case No. : ITA No. 5676/Del/2025
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remitted back the addition of capital gains deduction to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication in absence of a remand report despite repeated reminders.
The Bench, comprising Mr. Mahavir Singh (Vice President) on the claim of assessee that income was an exempt income for being a sum received under life insurance policy noted AO's failure to furnish remand report.
Case Title: DCIT, Circle- 41(3)(1) Mumbai Vs. Deepak Shah
Case No: ITA No. 3870/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has held that where purchases are conclusively proven to be bogus and the assessee fails to substantiate the genuineness of suppliers, the entire purchase amount must be added to income and the benefit of estimating profit element cannot be applied.
A Bench of Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Accountant Member) was hearing a Revenue appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted disallowance of alleged bogus purchases to 15% on the ground that sales were not doubted. The Bench reversed the partial relief and restored 100% addition in respect of four purchase parties.
Case Title: Rajni Arvind Birla v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No. 930/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an assessment order passed without awaiting the DVD (Departmental Valuation Officer) report violates Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) opined that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B, without awaiting the DVO's report, when such a report was statutorily awaited, is not sustainable.
Case Title: Preity G. Zinta vs. Income Tax Officer
Case No: ITA No. 4199/MUM/2025
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has set aside a ₹10.84 crore addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of actress Preity G. Zinta, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions routed through entities of the Danish Merchant Group.
A Bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member), while hearing the appeal of Preity G. Zinta against an addition under Section 68, observed that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the documents proving the genuineness of loan transactions routed through entities of the Danish Merchant Group.
Case Title: Hareshkumar Mafatlal Shah v. ACIT, Mumbai
Case No.: ITA No. 5439/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai has held that long-term capital gains (LTCG) arising from the sale of listed shares cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis of general allegations of penny-stock manipulation, when the assessee has supported the transactions with complete documentary evidence.
A Division Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the additions of ₹2.41 crore made towards alleged bogus LTCG and ₹9.66 lakh towards estimated commission under Sections 68(Unexplained Credit Cash) and 69C(Unexplained Expenditure) of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai Deletes Additions Based On HSBC Geneva 'Base Note' Against Anil Ambani
Case Title: DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai Vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani
Case No.: ITA No. 6228/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6229/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6230/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6231/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6232/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6233/Mum/2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against businessman Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, holding that additions made on the basis of alleged undisclosed foreign bank accounts with HSBC Bank, Geneva were unsustainable in law.
A Bench comprising Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had deleted both substantive and protective additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2001–02 to 2006–07.
Income Tax Act | GST Would Not Form Part Of Gross Receipts Under Section 44BB: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title: Oceaneering International GmbH v. DCIT (International Taxation)
Case No.: ITA No. 6705/Mum/2025 | AY 2023–24
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected by a non-resident assessee cannot be included in gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Oceaneering International GmbH for Assessment Year 2023–24 and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude GST while computing income on a presumptive basis.
Income Tax | ITAT Mumbai Allows Section 80P Deduction On Interest Earned From Co-operative Banks
Case Title: Clover Everest World Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. ITO Ward-1(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6376/Mum/2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed a co-operative housing society to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act on interest income earned from deposits placed with co-operative banks.
A Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Clover Everest World Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and set aside the denial of deduction by the tax authorities for Assessment Year 2021–22.
Case Title: Shri Indihaf Jamal Mohamed v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.: 2398/CHNY/2025
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely due to delay in registration if investment in new residential property is made within the prescribed time.
George George K (Vice President) stated that if the assessee has utilised the sale proceeds within the stipulated time, the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54 of the Act, provided the assessee has satisfied the other conditions stipulated under Section 54 of the Act.
Case Title: Vodafone West Limited (formerly known as Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(1)(2)
Case No.: ITA No. 671/AHD/2015 and ITA No. 1634/AHD/2015
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that multiple additions made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained in law. The Bench held that the transfer of passive telecom tower assets pursuant to a court-approved demerger amounted to a genuine “gift” under Section 47(iii), and the Assessing Officer could not artificially impute consideration or deny depreciation.
It further ruled that roaming services do not involve human intervention so as to qualify as “technical services”, and therefore no TDS was deductible u/s 194J, rendering the consequential disallowance unsustainable.
US Government Pension Received In India Not Taxable Under India-USA DTAA: ITAT Delhi
Case Title: Jeanne Lee Cantrill v. DCIT, Circle-67(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6322/Del/2025 | AY 2016–17
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that pension received by a US national from a US government retirement fund cannot be taxed in India merely because the amount was received here, as the India–USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) grants exclusive taxing rights to the United States.
A Bench comprising Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), while hearing the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016–17, examined whether pension received from a United States government retirement fund by an American national working in India could be subjected to tax in India, despite the specific exemption available under Article 19(2) of the India–USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
Case Name: National Foundation for Corporate Governance vs. ITO, Ward 2 (4),
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed a Trust that had accumulated Income for Financial Year 2016-2017 to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and deleted addition of ₹37,99,090.
In a recent order, a Division Bench, comprising Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Shri Sudhir Kumar (Judicial Member) on effect of amendment restricting the accumulation period for income of charitable/religious trusts under Section 11, it was clarified that the Trust had retained the right to utilize funds till March 31, 2023.
Film Broadcasting Licence Fees Not Royalty Under India–Mauritius DTAA: Mumbai ITAT
Case Title: M/s Asia Today Limited Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)- 2(2)
Case No.: ITA No. 1403/M/2008 A.Y.: 2004-2005
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal, holding that the consideration received for granting non-exclusive broadcasting rights of Hindi feature films does not constitute “royalty” taxable in India under the Income Tax Act or the India–Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Narender Kumar Choudhry and Accountant Member Omkareshwar Chidara was hearing the appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to tax ₹1 crore received from licensing film broadcasting rights as royalty.
Case Title: ACIT Vs. Mallics Jewels
Case No.: I.T.A No. 312/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-2018
The Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an appellate order deleting a ₹2.75 crore addition made on account of cash deposits during the demonetisation period and has remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
A Bench comprising Vice President Kul Bharat and Accountant Member Anadee Nath Mishra was hearing the Revenue's appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had earlier deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of a jewellery firm for Assessment Year 2017–18.
Case Title: M/s JS Infrastructure Vs. ACIT Central Circle-2
Case No.: IT(SS)A No. 3120/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2017-2018
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the appeal filed by M/s JS Infrastructure, deleting an addition of ₹50 lakh made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in proceedings initiated under Section 153C.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Kavitha Rajagopal and Accountant Member Omkareshwar Chidara held that no addition could be sustained in a completed assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search.
Case Title: Ketan Himatlal Mehta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(!), Mumbai
Case no.: ITA No. 2499/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2020-21
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an income tax addition of over ₹18.48 crore made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the disputed immovable property was held as stock-in-trade by the assessee.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary and Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant was hearing the appeal filed by an individual assessee for Assessment Year 2020-21 against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: Western Industrial Co-operative Estate Limited Vs. DCIT Circle 32(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6514/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2017-2018
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that rental income earned by a co-operative society from letting out its administrative building is assessable under the head “Income from House Property” and not as “Income from Other Sources.”
A Bench comprising Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Jagadish was hearing cross appeals filed by Western Industrial Co-operative Estate Limited for Assessment Year 2017-18.
ITAT Mumbai Restores Trust's 12AB Registration Matter To CIT(E) For Fresh Consideration
Case Title: Shri Hans Maharaj Trust Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Mumbai
Case No.: ITA No. 1721/Mum/2025
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] rejecting the application of Shri Hans Maharaj Trust for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and has remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
A Bench comprising Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav and Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee was dealing with an appeal filed by the trust against the order dated 26.12.2024, whereby the CIT(E) had declined registration on the ground that one of the objects in the trust deed allegedly violated Section 11 of the Act by permitting application of funds outside India.
Case Title: DCIT Vs. Mahle Filters Systems (India) Ltd.
Case No.: ITA No. 4240/Del/2016 (AY 2010-2011)
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld substantial tax relief granted to Mahle Filters Systems (India) Ltd. for Assessment Year 2010–11, rejecting the Revenue's challenge to the company's deduction claimed under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act.
A Bench comprising Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member Krinwant Sahay, while deciding cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue, held that the tax department was not justified in treating the assessee's amalgamation as a sham or in tinkering with the method of allocation of after-market trading expenses.