April 2026

In this landmark judgment, the Madras High Court (Rajamannar, C.J. & Panchapakesa Aiyar, J.) meticulously delineates the jurisdictional boundaries for appeals to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution in tax recovery matters. The case centers on a wife’s challenge to the attachment of her property for her husband’s income-tax arrears, where the Court had earlier dismissed her writ petition under Article 226, permitting the Collector to proceed under Section 46(2) of the Income Tax Act 1922 while safeguarding her right to contest ownership. The Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal hinges on a tripartite analysis: first, distinguishing civil proceedings involving property rights from pure revenue proceedings; second, emphasizing that an order is not ‘final’ unless it conclusively determines substantive rights, not merely procedural steps; and third, scrutinizing the pecuniary valuation requirement. This decision underscores the principle that appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court requires a definitive adjudication on merits, not interim or procedural rulings, thereby reinforcing the finality doctrine in constitutional appeals. For tax professionals, this judgment serves as a critical reference on the interplay between writ jurisdiction, tax recovery mechanisms, and appellate thresholds, highlighting the necessity of exhausting remedies like claim petitions under CPC before seeking Supreme Court intervention.

In this landmark ruling, the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘SMC’ dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)’s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings and delete the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- u/s 68. The Tribunal reinforced stringent judicial standards for reopening assessments beyond four years, emphasizing that mechanical reliance on investigation wing reports without independent verification and specific tangible material renders reassessment void. On substantive grounds, the judgment clarifies that where corporate shareholders are duly assessed entities with substantial net worth, and transactions occur via banking channels, the assessee’s burden u/s 68 is discharged, barring additions based on conjectures. This decision serves as a critical precedent for taxpayers facing reassessment on alleged bogus share capital, highlighting procedural safeguards and evidentiary thresholds.

In this landmark penalty appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, overturned the lower authorities’ levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income. The case involved Harish Narinder Salve, a senior advocate, where additions were made for disallowed depreciation on a luxury car and an omitted loss on fixed assets. The Tribunal meticulously examined the transactional timeline, voluntary disclosures, and the assessee’s affidavit, concluding that the errors were bona fide and inadvertent. Emphasizing the absence of contumacious conduct, the decision reinforces the principle that penalty requires proof of mala fide intent, not mere disallowances. This ruling provides critical guidance for professionals on penalty proceedings, highlighting the distinction between accounting errors and willful concealment.

In this landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, reinforcing the stringent threshold for ‘substantial questions of law’ under s. 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision that post-search assessments must be framed under s. 153A, not s. 143(3), and validated the deletion of additions for unexplained purchases, stock discrepancies, and suppressed sales. Key takeaways: (1) The High Court cannot re-appreciate factual findings unless they are perverse, a question not raised here; (2) Once books are rejected under s. 145(3), they cannot be selectively used to sustain additions; (3) Uniformity in interpreting central laws like the IT Act is crucial, as highlighted by the Tribunal’s reliance on an Indore Bench ruling. This decision underscores the finality of Tribunal fact-finding and limits Revenue’s appellate scope to pure legal errors.

In this landmark judgment by the Ahmedabad Tribunal, the court delved into the jurisdictional boundaries between Section 142A and Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of capital gains taxation. The assessee sold ancestral land and adopted FMV as on 01.04.1981 per a Registered Valuer’s report. The AO’s reference to the DVO under Section 142A was challenged as ultra vires, given that Section 142A is confined to Sections 69, 69A, and 69B matters, not overvaluation of pre-1981 assets. The DVO’s subsequent report under Section 55A was deemed invalid due to jurisdictional overreach. The Tribunal’s ratio decidendi underscores that tax authorities must strictly adhere to statutory mandates; references under wrong provisions and actions beyond delegated authority vitiate the entire proceeding. This decision reinforces procedural sanctity in tax assessments, protecting assessees from arbitrary valuation references.

In this landmark ruling by the Delhi ITAT, the Revenue’s appeal challenging the deletion of additions for deemed dividend and TDS disallowance was dismissed. The Tribunal reinforced the principle that loans attracting interest and made in the ordinary business course, especially when the lender company’s income substantially comes from interest, are not deemed dividends u/s 2(22)(e). It clarified that such provisions target sham transactions, not genuine commercial dealings. Additionally, it held that payments for testing charges in work contracts do not fall under ‘professional/technical services’ u/s 194J, thus no TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) applies. This decision provides critical guidance for taxpayers on structuring inter-corporate loans and TDS compliance in contract-based businesses.

In this landmark judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, addressed critical issues in reassessment and bogus purchase cases. The Tribunal invalidated reassessment proceedings initiated solely on DGIT information without AO’s independent application of mind, reinforcing the ‘reason to believe’ standard under Section 147. On substantive grounds, it balanced revenue’s concerns with assessee’s rights by upholding additions but restricting them to peak credit methodology and a 12.5% profit estimation, citing precedents like N.K. Proteins Ltd. and Simit P Sheth. The decision clarifies that banking channel payments alone do not discharge the assessee’s burden under Section 69C when suppliers are bogus, and natural justice pleas must be raised timely. This ruling provides a nuanced framework for handling accommodation entries in trading businesses.

In this landmark judgment, the ITAT Indore Bench meticulously dissected the exemption claim under section 10(23C)(iiiab) by M.P. Rajya Open School, a state-formed society for open school education. The Tribunal reinforced the dual statutory mandate: institutions must exist solely for education without profit motive and be substantially government-financed. While acknowledging judicial precedents that permit incidental surpluses (e.g., Delhi High Court in St. Lawrence Educational Society), the Tribunal found the assessee’s massive profit generation (crores in surplus) and minimal government funding (only one grant decades prior) fatal to its claim. The decision underscores that ‘substantially financed’ implies near-total government support, and profit magnitude can reveal a non-educational primary object. This ruling serves as a critical reference for educational entities navigating exemption thresholds, emphasizing strict compliance with both purpose and funding criteria under the Income Tax Act.