January 2026

In this landmark Delhi High Court judgment, the Revenue’s appeal challenging the classification of rental income as business income was dismissed. The Court reinforced the principle that the Tribunal’s factual findings are sacrosanct unless perverse. Analyzing the assessee’s business model—property development, leasing, and restaurant operations—the Court held that income from owned and leased properties was correctly treated as business income under Section 28(i), not as income from other sources. The decision underscores the importance of examining the substance of transactions and the assessee’s predominant business objectives in income classification disputes.

In this landmark Delhi High Court judgment, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s classification of rental and franchise income as ‘business income’ under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, rejecting the Revenue’s argument for ‘income from other sources’. The decision reinforces the principle that the Tribunal’s factual findings are binding unless perverse, and emphasizes substance over form in determining whether property exploitation constitutes business activity. Key factors included the assessee’s business objectives, active involvement in property exploitation, and consistency in past assessments. This ruling provides clarity for real estate developers and investors on income characterization, affirming that active commercial exploitation of properties can qualify as business income, entitling assessees to broader deductions.

In this appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, the assessee challenged an addition of Rs.50 lakhs (enhanced to Rs.83.33 lakhs by CIT(A)) arising from survey operations. The key issue was the evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 133A. The Tribunal ruled that while such statements can be valid if based on evidence (like stock discrepancies), the enhancement lacked justification due to insufficient break-up details. The AO’s addition of Rs.50 lakhs, based on the assessee’s subsequent admission, was upheld, emphasizing that admissions, unless proven erroneous, are decisive. The appeal was partly allowed, reinforcing principles on survey evidence and procedural fairness in tax assessments.

In this landmark TDS case, Nestle India Ltd. successfully challenged orders deeming it an assessee in default for not deducting tax on conveyance reimbursements to employees. The ITAT Delhi Bench ruled that such reimbursements for office-residence commute are not salary perquisites under the Income Tax Act, based on historical CBDT circulars and consistent judicial precedents. Critically, the Tribunal upheld the principle that employers acting under bona fide belief, supported by legal interpretations and authorities, cannot be penalized under Section 201(1). The decision reinforces that TDS obligations under Section 192 require only a fair estimate, not absolute certainty, and sets a precedent for distinguishing between salary and exempt allowances in employer compliance.

In this landmark judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, allowed the assessee’s appeal, setting aside the addition of Rs.46,83,790/- made by the AO on account of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains. The Tribunal reaffirmed the fundamental principle that additions cannot be based on mere suspicion, conjectures, or general investigation reports without specific evidence against the assessee. It underscored the importance of documentary evidence in share transactions, the necessity of providing cross-examination opportunities, and the revenue’s burden to prove allegations of bogus transactions. The decision reinforces judicial precedents requiring concrete evidence over generalized allegations, providing significant relief to taxpayers facing similar additions based on investigation wing reports.

In a landmark ruling, the ITAT Delhi allowed deduction of sales tax penalty as business expenditure, carving out an exception to the general prohibition. The Tribunal held that where an assessee, under compulsion of prevailing authoritative interpretation (here, sales tax department’s consistent stance), collects tax later held invalid, any resultant penalty falls on them as a trader with no alternative. This ‘no-alternative’ test distinguishes involuntary compliance from voluntary breaches, making the expenditure deductible under section 37(1). The decision underscores that deductibility hinges on whether the liability arose intrinsically from business operations under contemporaneous legal understanding, not hindsight.

In this landmark ITAT ruling, the Tribunal upheld the tax authority’s position that service tax collected by non-resident shipping companies must be included in gross receipts for computing presumptive income under section 44B of the Income Tax Act. The decision clarifies that statutory levies like service tax, though collected as an agent of the government, constitute trading receipts when incidental to core business operations. The Tribunal rejected the ‘profit element’ argument, emphasizing that section 44B’s explanatory language includes amounts without profit character. However, the appeal was partly allowed as the Tribunal quashed interest levied under section 234B, following binding precedent that no interest can be charged when tax was deductible at source. This ruling significantly impacts international shipping companies operating in Indian waters, reinforcing broad interpretation of ‘aggregate amount’ under presumptive taxation regimes.

In this landmark Supreme Court judgment, the Revenue successfully appealed against the High Court’s decision. The apex court, applying the doctrine of precedent, held that the case was squarely covered by its earlier ruling in Ganesh Dass Sreeram vs. ITO. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, overturned the High Court’s judgment, and answered the referred questions affirmatively in favor of the Revenue, establishing consistency in judicial interpretation of the relevant Income Tax Act provisions.