In this transfer pricing appeal, Zeta Interactive Systems India Pvt. Ltd. contested the TPO’s arm’s length price adjustment for software development services with its AE. The Tribunal, referencing multiple ITAT decisions, excluded comparables like Acropetal Technologies (failing revenue filter) and E-Zest Solutions (KPO services), while remanding for fresh analysis on others. The ruling reinforces the importance of functional comparability and segmental data in transfer pricing benchmarks, impacting IT/ITES sector assessments.

In this landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed the stringent threshold for admitting appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, emphasizing that mere factual disputes do not constitute substantial questions of law. The Court meticulously dissected the Revenue’s contentions regarding turnover estimation, book rejection, and relief quantification, holding that these were quintessential factual matters already adjudicated by the Tribunal and CIT(A). By invoking a jurisprudential framework from apex court precedents, the judgment underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to re-evaluate factual findings absent perversity or legal infirmity. This decision serves as a critical precedent for tax professionals, highlighting the limited scope of High Court intervention in factual assessments and reinforcing the finality of appellate factual determinations.

In this landmark judgment, the Assam High Court clarified the distinction between capital receipts and business income in the context of land sales by a tea estate. The Court affirmed that profits from selling part of a capital asset (land) are not taxable as business income unless the transaction is a ‘venture in the nature of trade.’ Key factors included the assessee’s original intent for tea cultivation, the absence of a pre-existing scheme to deal in land, and the sale being driven by financial necessity (to pay off a mortgage) rather than trade motives. The decision reinforces that isolated sales, without evidence of trading intent at acquisition, constitute capital realizations. This case is pivotal for taxpayers in real estate and agriculture, highlighting the importance of documenting intent and circumstances to avoid misclassification of capital gains as business profits.

In this landmark reassessment case, the Patna High Court upheld the validity of proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, against assessee Bhimraj Panna Lal for three assessment years. The core issue was whether income from undisclosed business transactions—admitted by the assessee but omitted from his books—could be reassessed. The Court meticulously interpreted Section 34, clarifying it as a machinery provision enabling the ITO to act when income escapes assessment due to non-disclosure or based on information. Key holdings: the burden of proving escapement lies with the revenue, met here by the assessee’s admissions; ‘escaped assessment’ encompasses cases where earlier assessments were incomplete due to omissions, not merely non-assessment; and the ITO’s bona fide belief, supported by evidence like account copies from another jurisdiction, suffices to initiate action. This judgment reinforces the department’s authority to reassess hidden income, emphasizing procedural compliance and substantive evidence over mere suspicion.

In a significant ruling on reassessment procedures, the Hyderabad ITAT quashed an assessment reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal established that reassessment cannot be initiated merely on suspicion or when regular assessment via section 143(2) is still possible. Critically, it reinforced that if the foundational reason for reopening (here, a discrepancy in gross receipts) is resolved, the AO cannot pivot to tax other income under Explanation 3. The decision underscores procedural safeguards: reassessment requires a valid ‘reason to believe’ (not just suspicion), adherence to timelines for regular assessment, and mandatory disposal of assessee objections through a speaking order. For practitioners, this case serves as a precedent to challenge reassessments that are procedurally flawed or where the original basis evaporates.

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.