Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


ACIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. (2025) 181 taxmann.com 176(2026) 349 CTR 53 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial: City Union Bank Ltd v.ACIT (2020) 116 taxmann.com 139/ 425 ITR 475 (Mad)(HC), order of single judge was set aside.

S. 147: Reassessment-Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Assessee participated in proceedings and objections disposed of by a speaking order-Writ petition challenging notice under section 148 not maintainable at show-cause stage-Order of single judge set aside. [S.14A, 148, Art. 226]

Motorola India (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 461 (P&H)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Reason to believe-Order of Transfer Pricing Officer for subsequent assessment year can be taken into account for reassessment of period prior to amendment of section 92-Writ petitions dismissed. [S. 92, Art.226]

Ravi Kumar Kailashnath Jaiswal v. ACIT (2026) 349 CTR 329 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Reassessment order passed in reliance on a superior court ruling after original notices were quashed by the High Court-An unappealed High Court judgment quashing a notice remains final and cannot be bypassed via subsequent universal rulings. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, Art. 226]

Eaton Power Quality (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 564 /183 taxmann.com 363 (Mad)(HC)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Reference to TPO under section 92CA was made on 11-01-2022 after expiry of limitation for passing an assessment order under section 153(2) on 31-03-2021; it was without jurisdiction. The order passed under section 92CA (3) on 27-01-2022 and consequential proceedings under section 144C were set aside. [S. 92CA (3), 153(2), Art. 226]

New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DRP (2026) 349 CTR 172 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Transfer pricing-Assessment-Limitation-Remand by Tribunal directly to Transfer Pricing Officer-Second reference by Assessing Officer after Transfer Pricing Officer had already passed order in compliance with Tribunal’s directions-Superfluous and barred by limitation-Assessing Officer deprived of jurisdiction to pass final assessment order. [S. 92CA,, 153(3), 153(4), Art. 226]

Milacron India (P) Ltd. v. AUITD (2026) 349 CTR 475 (Guj)(HC)

S. 144B: Faceless assessment-Objections to draft assessment order-Filed before jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer due to inadvertence-Final assessment order quashed-Matter remanded to Dispute Resolution Panel. [S. 143(3), 144C, Art. 226]

Bechtel Power Corporation v. ACIT (2026) 349 CTR 807 (Delhi)(HC). Editorial : Review petition dismissed, Bechtel Power Corporation & Anr. v. ACIT (2026) 349 CTR 803 (Delhi)(HC).

S.143(3): Assessment-Processing of return-Return pending for long period-Authority directed to process return-Expiry of statutory period-Return to be accepted at face value. [143(1)(a), 244A, Art. 226]

Anupama Chand v. Dy. CIT (2026)349 CTR 315/ 183 taxmann.com 336 (Telangana)(HC)

S.143(2): Assessment-Notice-Block assessment-Notice served-Notice issued within limitation but served beyond twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was filed-Service of notice is mandatory-Entire proceedings vitiated. [S. 132, 143(3), 158BC, 158BD, 260A]

Patel Rajeshkumar Naranbhai & Co. v. ITO (2026) 349 CTR 157 (Guj)(HC)

S. 132B : Application of seized or requisitioned assets-Search and seizure-Application for release within prescribed time-Assessing Officer not at liberty to retain beyond 120 days awaiting crystallization of assessment demand-Order dismissing application quashed-Respondents directed to release seized assets.[S. 132, Art. 226]

Sanghvi Dhanrupji Devaji & Co. v. UOI (2025) 181 taxmann.com 755 / (2026) 349 CTR 718 (Bom)(HC)

S. 132B : Application of seized or requisitioned assets-Jewellery seized from assessee’s employees was requisitioned under section 132A-Stock in trade-Rejection of application by an Assessing Officer not having jurisdiction over assessee or seized assets was invalid; impugned order was to be set aside and matter remanded to concerned jurisdictional officer holding charge over assessee to decide application afresh. [S. 132, 132A, Art. 226]