In this landmark ruling by the Visakhapatnam ITAT, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion of a Rs. 5.40 crore addition under section 68 for share application money. The Tribunal held the assessee company discharged its burden by furnishing share applications, confirmations, and details of shareholders’ agricultural land holdings, and by allotting shares and issuing share certificates. It emphasized that the AO failed to conduct further inquiries or prove the transactions were bogus, and the Revenue’s onus was not discharged. Critically, the Tribunal affirmed that the proviso to section 68, introduced by Finance Act 2012 to tax share capital in the company’s hands, applies only prospectively from assessment year 2013-14, not retrospectively. This decision reinforces the principle from Lovely Exports that share application money cannot be taxed in the company’s hands if shares are allotted, and the Revenue may pursue the shareholders instead. The ruling provides clarity on compliance standards under section 68 and the non-retrospective application of legislative amendments, offering significant precedent for companies facing similar additions.

In this wealth tax reference, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the Revenue’s inclusion of two assets in the assessee’s net wealth. First, properties transferred to the assessee’s mother under a partition deed were deemed her absolute property, inherited by the assessee upon her death, applying Hindu Succession Act provisions. Second, compensation received from the Government was held not a deductible liability as it was a contingent obligation, not a present debt. The decision reinforces principles of property rights under Hindu law and liability computation under wealth tax.

In this landmark judgment, the Gujarat High Court, comprising Hon’ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Nisha M. Thakore, meticulously dissected the territorial jurisdiction conundrum under Article 226(2) of the Constitution in tax reassessment matters. The petitioner, Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, sought to quash a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the ITO, Cuttack, Orissa, before the Gujarat High Court, citing service of a subsequent notice under Section 143(2) at Ahmedabad as triggering jurisdiction. The Revenue, represented by Senior Counsel M.R. Bhatt, contested this, emphasizing that all substantive actions—notice issuance, return filing, and assessment—occurred in Orissa. The Court embarked on a profound jurisprudential journey, tracing the evolution of Article 226 from its pre-amendment strict territorial limits to the post-amendment inclusion of cause of action. Relying on a catena of Supreme Court authorities, including Swaika Properties and Adani Exports, the Court elucidated that ’cause of action’ refers to integral facts germane to the lis, not every incidental event. It concluded that the reassessment challenge’s gravamen centered on Orissa-based actions; the Ahmedabad notice was a disjointed procedural step, insufficient to anchor jurisdiction in Gujarat. This ruling reinforces the principle that jurisdictional claims must be rooted in the core of the dispute, safeguarding against forum shopping and ensuring judicial efficiency in tax litigation.

In this landmark ruling by the Delhi ITAT, the Tribunal quashed assessment orders for AYs 2011-12 to 2019-20 in a search case, holding that the approval under section 153D was mechanically granted without independent application of mind. The Addl. CIT issued a common approval for five assessees across twenty years via a single letter, failing to examine individual assessment records or seized material. The Tribunal emphasized that section 153D mandates a judicious, case-specific approval process to prevent arbitrary assessments. It also reinforced the principle that additions in search assessments require incriminating material. This decision underscores procedural safeguards in search proceedings and limits Revenue’s discretion in blanket approvals.

This judgment addresses the applicability of paragraph 27AA of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, to establishments exempted under Section 17 of the EPF Act. The court held that exempted establishments are not bound by amendments to the statutory scheme unless the exemption conditions are specifically altered. The decision clarifies that the appropriate government must act through the exemption mechanism, not through scheme amendments, to enforce minimum benefits. The matter was referred to a larger bench due to conflicting precedent.

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.