In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reinforced the procedural robustness of tax assessment under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The Court decisively ruled that disputes over a firm’s dissolution date, pending in civil court, do not invalidate tax assessments completed in good faith based on the factual position at the time. Crucially, it affirmed that for excess profits tax, the ‘business’ itself is the taxable unit, not the legal entity of the firm. This principle ensures continuity in tax liability despite changes in partnership status. The judgment also clarified that service of notice on a managing partner binds all partners, and such partners are ‘assessees’ subject to recovery proceedings under the Income Tax Act, even without personal demand notices. This ruling provides critical precedent for tax authorities in assessing and recovering taxes from partnership businesses amidst internal disputes.

In a landmark ruling on the interplay between tax reassessment and criminal prosecution, the Supreme Court decisively held that pending reassessment proceedings do not constitute a legal bar to the initiation of criminal prosecution for tax evasion offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and related offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized the independence of criminal proceedings, requiring courts to evaluate evidence separately, while allowing for procedural adjustments like adjournments if assessment outcomes are imminent. This judgment clarifies that the mere possibility of a favourable outcome in reassessment does not render prosecution premature, reinforcing the Department’s authority to pursue criminal action concurrently with civil proceedings, subject to the discretionary powers of the CIT under section 279 and the criminal courts under the CrPC.

In a significant ruling on service tax jurisprudence, the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, upholding CESTAT’s view that service tax cannot be demanded from service recipients (availers) for periods prior to 2003. The Court clarified that assessment under section 73 of the Finance Act 1994 is contingent on the assessee’s liability to file returns under section 70. Since service receivers were not mandated to file returns until section 71A was inserted in 2003, any show-cause notices or demands for the 1997-1998 period were invalid. The Court rejected the Revenue’s argument based on retrospective validation under the Finance Act 2000, emphasizing that statutory provisions must be interpreted as they stood during the relevant time. This decision reinforces the principle that tax liability must be grounded in clear statutory authority and protects assessees from retrospective impositions without explicit legislative mandate.

In this comprehensive judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, adjudicated multiple tax disputes for G.E. Power India Ltd. across assessment years 2002-03 and 2008-09. Key rulings include: upholding the non-deductibility of VRS expenses added back to profit; confirming that provisions for doubtful debts do not constitute unascertained liabilities under MAT provisions; allowing deductions under section 80HHC from book profit, supported by Supreme Court authority; permitting set-off of amalgamation-related losses under section 72A; allowing club subscription fees as legitimate business expenditure; and rejecting disallowance of unpaid service tax under section 43B where amounts were not received. The decision reinforces principles of factual accuracy, statutory interpretation, and adherence to binding precedents, favoring the assessee on most substantive legal issues while dismissing procedural challenges.

In Gita Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking writ relief in tax matters. The appellant challenged the Commissioner’s order under Section 33B of the Income Tax Act 1922 cancelling assessments, alleging lack of notice/opportunity. The Court dismissed the appeal on dual grounds: (1) Procedural Impropriety – the appellant improperly invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when an adequate statutory appeal remedy existed under Section 33B(3), without justifying exceptional circumstances; and (2) Merits Deficit – the High Court correctly found, based on evidence, that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity of being heard as required by Section 33B, which does not mandate strict notice service formalities. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere with tax administration through writ petitions when statutory appeal mechanisms are available and operational.

SMT. KILASHO DEVI BURMAN & ORS. vs. CIT: A landmark Supreme Court ruling reinforcing procedural sanctity in tax assessments. The Court overturned the Calcutta High Court and restored the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order, holding that no valid assessment existed on the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) for the base year 1955-56 due to the absence of a signed assessment order and proper service. This invalidated all subsequent reassessments for 1958-59 to 1962-63. Crucially, the judgment delineates the boundaries of the High Court’s reference jurisdiction, prohibiting it from examining evidence not part of the Tribunal’s factual record, even to challenge findings as ‘perverse.’ The decision underscores the Revenue’s burden to prove the validity of foundational assessment orders and protects assessees from proceedings based on non-existent or defective assessments.

In this landmark ITAT Chandigarh ruling, the Tribunal meticulously dissects the tax treatment of surrendered income post-survey. Key holding: Recorded but unexplained capital credits fall under section 68 as deemed income, while unrecorded excess stock investments attract section 69. The decision reinforces the revenue’s stance on unexplained sources, rejecting assessee’s ‘business income’ claim due to lack of evidentiary nexus. Critical for practitioners handling survey disclosures and section 69/68 distinctions.

In a landmark ruling on international taxation, the Supreme Court held that US-based e-Funds companies did not have a Permanent Establishment in India under the India-US DTAA, despite having a 100% Indian subsidiary. The Court clarified that a subsidiary’s premises aren’t ‘at the disposal’ of the parent company merely due to ownership or control, and a service PE requires services to customers within India. It reinforced that arm’s length pricing between associated enterprises, as established here, negates the need for further profit attribution, preventing economic double taxation. This decision underscores the importance of substantive business presence over corporate structure in PE determinations and aligns with global tax principles.