Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dy. CIT v. Venus Infrastructure and Developers (P.) Ltd. (2026) 310 Taxman 490 (SC) Editorial: Venus Infrastructure and Developers (P.) Ltd v. CIT (2026) 185 taxmann.com 423 (Guj) HC)

S.147: Reassessment-Housing projects-Failure to complete the housing project-Reassessment was quashed and set aside-SLP of revenue dismissed.[S.80IB(10), 148, Art. 136]

ITO v. Amitkumar Chandulal Rajani (2026) 310 Taxman 575 (SC) Editorial: Amitkumar Chandulal Rajani v.ITO (2025) 173 taxmann.com 32/ (2026) 486 ITR 230 (Guj) HC)

S.147: Reassessment-AO recorded reasons mechanically on information received from Investigation Wing-Unexplained money-Search-No direct nexus-Reassessment notice and order disposing of the objection were quashed and set aside-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S.69A, 148, 151, Art. 136]

Dy. CIT v. J.M. Financial Ltd. (2026) 310 Taxman 94 (SC) Editorial : J.M.Financial Ltd v.Dy.CIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 740 (Bom)(HC) (Bom) (HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Unexplained investments-Investment in shares-Interest on borrowings-Security premium-Reassessment was quashed by the High Court-SLP is dismissed on account of delay of 498 days. [S. 14A, 69, 148, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Pradip Kumar Jajodia (2026) 310 Taxman 665 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Pradip Kumar Jajodia (HUF),(2026) 186 taxmann.com 193 (Cal)(HC)

S.147 : Reassessment-Cash credits-High Court held that where information regarding assessee’s trades in shares was already available on record at the time of original assessment, reopening of assessment on said ground was invalid as it was not reason to believe but reason to suspect-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 68, 148, Art. 136]

ACIT v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2026) 310 Taxman 89 (SC) Editorial : Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. ACIT(2025) 176 taxmann.com 103/ 478 ITR 358 (Bom)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Change of opinion-Dividend from trust-Investment allowance wrongly claimed-Reopening invalid-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 2(22)(e), 10(34), 32AC, 115-O, 143(3), 148, Art.136]

CIT, LTU v. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts (India) Ltd. (2026) 310 Taxman 677 (Mad)(HC)

S. 145: Method of accounting-Mercantile-Accrual-Time share membership fees-Matching principle-Membership fee received upfront could be deferred and recognised as income over tenure of membership contract, applying matching principle, notwithstanding mercantile system and absence of express statutory provision to defer revenue, and despite separate collection of annual maintenance and utility charges-Order of tribunal affirmed. [S. 4, 5, 28(i), 260A]

Hansgrohe India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2026) 310 Taxman 446 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Final assessment order could not be treated as a draft assessment order, nor could the defect be cured by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh draft assessment order-Order was quashed. [S.143(3), 144B(1)(xxi), Art. 226]

Ishwarlal Dahyalal Bauva v. NFAC(2026) 310 Taxman 316 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144B: Faceless Assessment-Non-compliance with mandatory procedure-Draft assessment order-Assessment order was quashed and set aside. [S.144B(1)(xvi), Art. 226]

JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. v. NFAC (2026) 310 Taxman 197 (Bom)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Amalgamation-Intimation of amalgamation was sent to the Assessing Officer-Non-existing entity-Assessing Officer committed jurisdictional error by issuing notices and passing assessment order in name of a non-existent entity-Assessment order is void and bad in law. [S. 143(2), Art. 226]

Dy. CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2026) 310 Taxman 406 (SC) Dy. CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2026) 310 Taxman 488 (SC) Editorial: Reliance Industries Ltd v. P.L.Roongta (2025) 171 taxmann.com 467/479 ITR 770 (Bom)(HC)

S. 143(3) Assessment-Merger-Additional evidence-Non-existent company-Additional grounds and evidence admitted by High Court-Order of assessment was quashed-SLP of revenue was dismissed.[S.260A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 41, Rule 27, Art. 136,Art, 136]