Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dayaram Brijbhukhandas v. PCIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 50 / (2026) 487 ITR 144 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Demonetization-Cash deposit-Assessing Officer had not conducted verification of cash deposit made by assessee in bank account-Revision order was affirmed.[S.115BBE, Art. 226]

Khazana Jewellery Pvt. Ltd v. ITSC (2026) 487 ITR 19 / 184 taxmann.com 164 (Mad)(HC) Editorial : Order of single judge set aside, Khazana Jewellery Pvt. Ltd v. ITSC (2026) 487 ITR 1 [2025] 181 taxmann.com 504 (Mad)(HC)

S. 245C: Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Search and seizure-True and full disclosure-Undisclosed income in jewellery business-Modus operandi of inflation of refinery loss-Full and true disclosure in application of manner in which undisclosed income derived-Rejection of application on ground of failure to truly and fully disclose-Dismissal of writ petition-On appeal division bench held that failure of competent authority to scrutinise in detail assessee’s application resulting in dismissal of writ petition Order in writ petition and order rejecting application for settlement of case set aside-Matter remanded to competent authority with directions to scrutinize application. [S. 69B, 115BBE, 132, 245C(1), 245D(4), 245HA, Art. 226]

Khazana Jewellery Pvt. Ltd v. ITSC [2025] 181 taxmann.com 504 (2026) 487 ITR 1 (Mad)(HC) Editorial : Order of single judge set aside, Khazana Jewellery Pvt. Ltd v. ITSC (2026) 487 ITR 19 / 184 taxmann.com 164 (Mad)(HC)

S. 245C: Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Search and seizure-True and full disclosure-Consideration of application under section 245D(4) in its entirety and not piecemeal-Settlement Commission cannot change assessee’s declaration and treat income disclosed in one head as another head and impose tax-Rejection of application was affirmed. [S. 69B, 115BBE, 132, 245C(1), 245D(4), 245HA, Art. 226]

Dhansamridhi Finance Pvt. Ltd v Dy. CIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 858 / (2026) 487 ITR 693 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 154: Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Rectification order was passed after expiry of four years, holding that assessee was required to pay interest under section 234A,-ITNS-150 was an order under section 143(3), and any amendment to same would fall within scope of an amendment as contemplated under section 154(1)(a)-Rectification order was barred by limitation.[S. 154(1)(a), 234A]

East Bourne Hotels Pvt. Ltd v. UOI (2026) 487 ITR 161 / 186 taxmann.com 860 (HP)(HC)

S. 154: Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Undertakings-Special category states-Binding precedent-Tribunal’s order had attained finality; rectification proceedings were held without jurisdiction as judicial discipline required lower authorities to loyally follow binding appellate directions, and rectification proceedings amounted to sitting over orders of higher authorities.[S.80IC,254(1), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Ridgeview Construction Pvt. Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 52 / (2026) 487 ITR 563 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Survey-Having bearing–Provisional balance sheet-Existence of primordial requirement of material relating to undisclosed income even prior to amendment in year 2015-Tribunal justified in annulling assessment.[S.132, 133A]

Asst. CIT v. Vetrivel Minerals (V.V. Minerals) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 110 /(2026) 487 ITR 488 (Mad)(HC) ACIT v. Vijay Cements [2025] 174 taxmann.com 110 /(2026) 487 ITR 488 (Mad)(HC) Editorial : Decision of single Judge in Vetrivel Minerals v.ACIT(2021) 437 ITR 178 (Mad)(HC), reversed.

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Admissibility of electronic records-Alternative remedy-Assessment proceedings are not judicial proceedings and technical rules of the 1872 Act are not applicable-Non-furnishing of certificate mandated under section 65B cannot be a shield to resist reception of electronic record-Order in writ petition set aside.[S. 132, 143(3), 144, 246A, Art. 226, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.65A, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023,S.63]

Prabhakar Nerulkar v. PCIT [2025] 177 taxmann.com 580 / (2026) 487 ITR 451 (Bom)(HC)

S. 151: Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Notice issued under old regime-Competent authority in terms of provision is Joint Commissioner-Notice issued obtaining approval of Principal Commissioner unsustainable-Notices and consequential orders quashed and set aside.[S. 144, 144B, 147, 148, Art. 226]

Dinesh Jain v. UOI (2026) 487 ITR 663 (All)(HC)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Supreme Court decision binding: Six-year limitation period under unamended section 149(1)(b) expired on 31-3-2023-No reassessment notice may be issued for any assessment year prior to assessment year 2021-22 unless the period of limitation under the unamended Act survived-Notice barred by limitation and hence quashed.[S. 147, 148, 149(1)(b), TOLA, Art. 226]

Ankit Agarwal v. PCIT (2026) 487 ITR 541(Patna)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-After three years-Bar of limitation-Alleging deposits and certain transactions-No material to support information-Long-term capital gains-Share transactions as bogus-Reassessment proceedings initiated based on incorrect information in notice vitiated-Notices and orders quashed and set aside.[S. 147, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1), Art.226]