HIGH COURTSAndhra Pradesh HCIncome Tax | Delay in Filing Form 10-B Due To COVID Cannot Deny S.11 Exemption: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: M/s Amnos Evangelical v. The Centralized Processing Centre, BengaluruCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 8798 OF 2025The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely on account of delay...
HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: M/s Amnos Evangelical v. The Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 8798 OF 2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely on account of delay in filing the Form 10-B Audit Report when such delay was caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Justices Battu Devanand and A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed that the assessee is a religious and charitable society and has to comply with the instructions issued by the Income Tax Department through their letter. Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, the assessee could not attend the letter issued by the Department and the documents sought by the Department were not furnished within the stipulated time.
Calcutta HC
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.
Delhi HC
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.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Delhi M/S TCK Advisers Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 778/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that companies engaged in activities beyond export services cannot be treated as functionally comparable to an assessee providing export-only services.
A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus upheld exclusion of such entities for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis qua an assessee engaged in providing investment advisory services to its Associated Enterprises (AE) in Mauritus.
Gujarat HC
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.
Case title: MILACRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v/s THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS
Case no.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11194 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court recently granted relief to a company which had inadvertently filed its objections to a proposed transfer pricing adjustment for Assessment Year 2022-23 before the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of filing it before the faceless authority.
The petitioner had sought quashing of final Assessment Order dated 02.05.2025 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C (3) and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, for Assessment Year 2022-23.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: Jatinder Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Shimla & Ors.
Case No.: CWP No. 20938 of 2025
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has stayed reassessment proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, noting that the validity of such notices is already under consideration before the Supreme Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma passed the order while hearing a writ petition which had challenged a reassessment notice issued for Assessment Year 2017-18, on the ground that it was without jurisdiction.
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).
Madras HC
Case Title: Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust Vs. The Union of India & Anr
Case No.: WP(MD) No. 29610 of 2025
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that a trust already recognised as a charitable organisation under the Income Tax Act cannot be ignored as such while considering its application under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA).
A Single Judge Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan was dealing with a writ petition filed by Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust challenging the rejection of its FCRA registration by the Ministry of Home Affairs . The Bench stated that when according to the Income Tax Department, the petitioner is a charitable organization, it cannot cease to be one under FCRA regime. That is the true import of Section 52 of the Act. The certificate issued in favour of the petitioner under Section 12A of the I.T Act is definitely a relevant material and failure to consider the same indicates non-application of mind.
Case Title: C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai
Case Number: TCA Nos. 1161, 1163, 1164 and 1162 of 2009
The Madras High Court held that the Long-Term Capital Gains exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely because the residential house was demolished before its sale.
The bench stated that since the sale took place later and the assessee reinvested the capital gains in another house within the prescribed time, the exemption is allowable.
Punjab & Haryana HC
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.
ITAT
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.