April 2026

The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the show cause notice and the order-in-original. The court held that the petitioner’s services of transportation of goods by road using his own vehicles are exempt from service tax under the negative list of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was invalid as there was no evidence of willful suppression or intent to evade tax. The court emphasized that the show cause notice is the foundation of proceedings and must be specific; vague allegations cannot sustain a demand. The judgment reinforces the principle that exemptions under the negative list must be given effect, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked mechanically without establishing the requisite mens rea.

In this landmark judgment, the Calcutta High Court quashed a block assessment notice under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act 1961, reinforcing strict procedural safeguards. The Court meticulously dissected the Revenue’s actions, highlighting fatal flaws: misstatement of assessee status, absence of independent AO satisfaction, improper jurisdictional transfer, and non-compliance with statutory conditions precedent. This decision underscores that block assessment proceedings demand rigorous adherence to legal prerequisites, particularly the AO’s subjective satisfaction and proper jurisdictional protocols, protecting assessees from arbitrary enforcement.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the deletion of disallowance of ESOP expenditure. The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Karnataka High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Biocon Limited and the Tribunal’s earlier order in the assessee’s own case, which was upheld by the High Court. The Revenue’s grounds that ESOP expenditure is notional, capital in nature, and not allowable under section 37(1) were rejected. The appeal was dismissed.

In this landmark ruling by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, the Revenue’s appeal against the deletion of additions related to a foreign HSBC bank account was critically examined. The assessee, a non-resident individual, faced reassessment under Section 147 based on ‘Base Note’ information revealing a Swiss bank account. While the Tribunal acknowledged the validity of the reassessment initiation, it emphatically upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion of the additions. The core legal principle reaffirmed is that for non-residents under Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue must conclusively prove that foreign-sourced income has a nexus to India to be taxable. The AO’s reliance on circumstantial evidence and presumptions under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act was found inadequate. Furthermore, the ruling highlights the impermissibility of double taxation, as the same income was already assessed in the hands of related beneficiaries. This decision underscores the stringent burden of proof on the Revenue in cross-border tax matters and reinforces the protection against double taxation, serving as a crucial precedent for non-resident taxpayers and practitioners in international tax disputes.

In this landmark reassessment case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, allowed the appeal of Ratanvav Juth Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Limited, a cooperative society, against the disallowance of deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that when a reassessment is initiated based on specific reasons (here, cash deposits), and the Assessing Officer accepts the assessee’s explanation on that issue without making any addition, the AO cannot independently disallow deductions on unrelated grounds. This decision reinforces the legal principle that the scope of reassessment is limited to the reasons recorded, preventing arbitrary expansions of tax scrutiny. The ruling provides crucial protection for taxpayers, especially cooperative societies, against overreach in reassessment proceedings, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to statutory boundaries under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act.

In a pivotal jurisdictional ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, allowed the Revenue’s miscellaneous application, recalling its earlier order. The case centered on the assessee trust’s appeal against the rejection of its section 80G approval renewal. The Tribunal originally allowed the assessee’s appeal in 2006. However, the Revenue successfully argued that prior to the 2007 amendment to section 253(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no statutory right to appeal an order passed under section 80G to the Tribunal. The Court meticulously analyzed the prospective nature of the amendment, emphasizing that the right to appeal is a substantive right. It held that the Tribunal’s 2006 order was passed without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. This patent legal error was rectifiable under section 254(2). The decision reinforces fundamental principles of statutory interpretation, jurisdiction, and the finality of orders, underscoring that tribunals cannot assume powers not conferred by statute at the relevant time.

In CIT vs. Darjeeling Club Ltd., the Calcutta High Court reaffirmed the doctrine of mutuality for members-only clubs, ruling that surplus from transactions with members (including temporary and honorary members) is not taxable as business income or property income. The Court emphasized that the club acted as an agent for its members, with no profit motive, and the corporate form did not alter this mutual character. This judgment provides clarity on the tax treatment of clubs adhering strictly to member-only transactions, reinforcing precedent that such surpluses are not income under the Income Tax Act.

In this landmark reassessment limitation case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal by quashing the Section 148 notice issued on 25/07/2022 for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal held the notice was barred by limitation as the six-year period under old Section 149 expired on 31/03/2022, and TOLA provided no extension. Decisively, the Tribunal enforced the Revenue’s admission before the Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal case that all notices for AY 2015-16 issued on or after 1st April 2021 would be dropped. This creates a significant precedent protecting taxpayers from time-barred reassessments following the Supreme Court’s Ashish Agarwal directions.