Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


National Co-Operative Development Corporation v. ACIT (2026) 484 ITR 193/ 308 Taxman 168 / 348 CTR 83 (SC) Editorial : Editorial : National Co-operative Development Corporation v. ACIT [2012] 204 Taxman 6 /[2013] 356 ITR 184 (Delhi) (HC) affirmed.

Interpretation of taxing statutes-Strict interpretation-Precedent-Judgment based on old, broader law cannot be used to interpret new, stricter provision.[S.36(1)(vii)]

DIT (IT) v. American Express Bank Ltd. (2026) 484 ITR 137/ 308 Taxman 246 / 348 CTR 38 / 256 DTR 497 (SC) DIT(IT) v. Oman International Bank S.A. O.G (Now Doha Bank) 2026) 484 ITR 137/ 308 Taxman 246 / 348 CTR 38 / 256 DTR 497 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 55/[2004] 134 Taxman 682 (Bom) (HC) disapproved. DIT (IT) v. American Express Bank Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1294 of 2013, dated 1-4-2015(Bom)(HC) set aside

Interpretation of taxing statues-Strict interpretation-Where words are plain and unambiguous, court bound to give effect to their plain meaning-Whether language is “plain and unambiguous” to be determined within context-Legislative intent-Crucial where language is ambiguous and capable of multiple constructions-Legislative purpose primarily to be gathered from specific words used by Legislature-Where language plain and unambiguous, court cannot read words into statute on notion that they would better serve legislative purpose-Aids to construction-Memorandum Explaining Provisions of Bill can be used to derive meaning of provision.[S.44C, 37 (1)]

CIT v. Umang Agarwal [2025] 173 taxmann.com 541 / (2026) 484 ITR 87 (All)(HC) Editorial : CIT v. Umang Agarwal (2014) 365 ITR 164 (All)(HC), observation, explained.

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Block assessment-Search and seizure-Review of order-Substantial question of law framed as regards applicability of correct clause/sub-clause of any section/sub-section of section 158BB was not answered by the court while deciding the appeal; the same, in itself, could not be a ground to review the order. [S. 143, 158BB(1) 158BC, CPC, 1908, O XLVII, R 1]

Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641/ 309 Taxman 2 (SC) Nalwa Investment Ltd. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641/ 309 Taxman 2 (SC) Abhinandan Tradex Ltd. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641/ 309 Taxman 2 (SC) Mansarover Tradex Ltd. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641/ 309 Taxman 2 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Nalwa Investment Ltd (2020) 427 ITR 229 (Delhi)(HC), affirmed.

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Substantial question of law-Question of law not earlier framed-Power to deal with necessary or incidental questions that arise-If parties had opportunity to address issues in dispute-Substantial question of law can be reframed. [Art. 136]

Sanjay Garg v. Williamson Financial Services Ltd and CIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 220 / (2026) 484 ITR 400(Gauhati)(HC) Dr. Maish Board v. Williamson Financial Services Ltd and CIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 220 / (2026) 484 ITR 400(Gauhati)(HC) Editorial : Williamson Financial Services Ltd. v. CIT, (2025) 482 ITR 628 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 255: Appellate Tribunal-Procedure-Functions-Strictures-Duties-Remarks and observations of court in respect of Members of Tribunal-Interim application by Judicial Member and Accountant Member seeking expunction of paragraph of court’s order containing detrimental remarks and observations causing harm to reputation-Paragraph of judgment containing remarks and observations expunged-Expunction of remarks not to be construed as comment with regard to merits of case.[S.254(1), 260A]

CIT v. India Cements Ltd [2025] 180 taxmann.com 564 / (2026) 484 ITR 30 (Mad)(HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Additional grounds-Challenge to validity of reassessment raised before Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected-Assessee in Department’s appeal filing application raising ground relating to validity of assessment-Tribunal justified in accepting ground and holding reassessment was on change of opinion and unsustainable in law.[S. 147, 148, (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, R. 27.]

C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT (2025) 305 Taxman 217 (2026) 484 ITR 185 (MP)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed, C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v PCIT (2026) 484 ITR 192 / 307 Taxman 2 (SC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Limitation-Condonation of delay-Mistake of counsel by itself not always a sufficient ground-Delay of six years and 83 days-Order of Tribunal dismissing.

C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v PCIT (2026) 484 ITR 192 / 307 Taxman 2 (SC) Editorial : C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT(2025) 305 Taxman 217 / (2026) 484 ITR 185 (MP)(HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Limitation-Condonation of delay-Delay of six to seven years-Tribunal finding lack of bona fides and gross negligence on part of assessee-Assessee aware of orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) but tried to place responsibility on counsel-SLP of assessee dismissed. [Art. 136]

Umang Agarwall v. CIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 282 / (2026) 484 ITR 100 (All)(HC) Editorial : Refer, CIT v. Umang Agarwal (2014) 365 ITR 164 (All)(HC), CIT v. Umang Agarwal (2026) 484 ITR 87 (All)(HC)

S. 158BC: Block assessment-Return-Search-Seizure of books of account-Return delayed-Tribunal treated delayed return as ‘non-est’ without considering impact of search and double taxation-Order was set aside, and matter was to be remanded for fresh adjudication. [S. 139(1), 158BB(1(ca), 158BC, 260A]

Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT (2026) 484 ITR 741 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Satisfaction note-Time limit for passing assessment order to be reckoned from 22-6-2022-Last date for passing assessment order has expired on 31-3-2024-Proceedings barred by limitation-Notice quashed and set aside.[S. 132, 153B, Art. 226]