Jan 26-201

1. Penalty Under Section 271AAC Set Aside Where Quantum Issue Is Pending Before High Court

Ms. Ruby Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, New Delhi
[2026] 1 TMI 1416 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 23 January 2026

The assessee, a proprietor engaged in film-related activities, challenged levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) following an addition under section 68 made in reassessment proceedings. The quantum addition arose from cash deposits allegedly linked to third-party survey findings, and the assessee’s appeal on the quantum issue was pending before the Delhi High Court, which had admitted substantial questions of law for multiple assessment years including the year under consideration. The Tribunal observed that when a substantial question of law arising from the quantum assessment is admitted by the High Court, the foundation of penalty proceedings becomes uncertain. It held that although penalty proceedings are independent, they cannot attain finality when the very basis of addition is sub judice on a substantial legal issue. In such circumstances, sustaining the penalty would be premature and contrary to principles of fairness. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order as well as the order of the CIT(A), granting liberty to the Assessing Officer to initiate fresh penalty proceedings, if warranted, after final adjudication of the quantum issue by the High Court. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.

Jan 26-202

2. Addition Under Section 153A Unsustainable in Absence of Incriminating Material Found During Search

Murari Lal Harish Chand Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi
[2026] 1 TMI 1319 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 22 January 2026

The assessee company challenged an assessment framed under section 153A for AY 2018-19, wherein the Assessing Officer reiterated an addition under section 56(2)(x) that had originally been made in a regular assessment under section 143(3). A search under section 132 was conducted while the original assessment proceedings were pending, resulting in abatement of such proceedings. However, no incriminating material relating to undervaluation or unexplained consideration for property purchase was found during the search. The Tribunal reiterated the settled legal position, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell, that in proceedings under section 153A, additions can be made only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during search. Since the impugned addition was merely carried forward from the earlier annulled assessment and was not based on any seized material, it was held to be unsustainable. The Tribunal further noted that once the original assessment had abated and was annulled, the Assessing Officer could not resurrect the same addition in section 153A proceedings without independent search-based evidence. Accordingly, the addition under section 56(2)(x) was deleted and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.

Jan 26-203

3. Reopening Quashed for Absence of Live Link Between Seized Material and Alleged On-Money Payment

Naliniben Jagdishkumar Gandhi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Modasa
[2026] 1 TMI 1326 (Gujarat High Court), decided on 19 January 2026

The petitioner challenged reopening of assessment for AY 2022-23 under section 148, which was initiated on the basis of a statement of a third-party broker and a seized register allegedly indicating a higher rate for land bearing Survey No. 465 at Village Shela. The petitioner had disclosed capital gains arising from sale of her 30% share in the land through a registered sale deed and the return was processed under section 143(1). The High Court noted that the seized register merely mentioned the survey number and an indicative rate in 2017 and did not name either the petitioner or the co-owner, nor did the broker’s statement link the petitioner to any cash “on-money” transaction. The Court further observed that subsequent events—particularly the gifting of the remaining 70% share by the co-owner to his son and the petitioner’s sale of her share in 2021—were inconsistent with the Revenue’s assumption that the entire land was sold at an inflated price in 2017. In the absence of any independent corroborative material establishing a live nexus between the seized documents and the petitioner, the jurisdictional requirement of “reason to believe” was held to be unmet. Consequently, the impugned reopening notice was quashed as invalid.

Jan 26-204

4. Criminal Appeal Becomes Infructuous Upon Compounding of Offence Under Section 276CC

Nelofar Currimbhoy v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
[2026] 1 TMI 1419 (Supreme Court), decided on 21 January 2026

The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from prosecution under section 276CC for failure to furnish the return of income for AY 1994-95 within the prescribed time, where the return was filed after a delay of about seven months without any cogent explanation. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, and pursuant to earlier directions of the Supreme Court, the appellant expressed willingness to compound the offence. The Revenue accepted the request, and the offence was formally compounded by an order dated 20 January 2026. The Supreme Court took note of the compounding order placed on record by the Additional Solicitor General and recorded the submission of both parties that, once the offence stood compounded, no lis survived for adjudication. In view of the statutory compounding and the settled position that compounding obliterates the criminal liability for the offence, the Court held that the appeal had become infructuous. Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed as infructuous and all pending applications were closed, without any examination of the merits of the original prosecution.

Jan 26-205

5. AMC Payments Held Liable to TDS Under Section 194C and Not Under Section 194J

Orbit Resorts Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-TDS, Gurgaon
[2026] 1 TMI 1260 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 21 January 2026

The assessee, engaged in running hotels, had made payments under Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs) for computers, DG sets, elevators and telecommunication equipment, on which tax was deducted at source under section 194C. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A), holding that the services were technical or professional in nature and attracted TDS under section 194J. The Tribunal analysed the contractual terms and statutory definitions and held that the essence of the arrangements was routine maintenance and repair work carried out periodically or as required, without rendering any managerial, consultancy or specialised technical services as contemplated under section 194J. Merely because the service providers employed technically qualified personnel did not convert the contracts into technical services. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 715 and several judicial precedents distinguishing works contracts from technical services, and also noted that the recipients had disclosed the receipts in their returns. It was therefore held that the payments correctly fell within section 194C and the assessee could not be treated as in default. The orders under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were set aside in full.

Jan 26-206

6. GST Not Includible in Gross Receipts for Presumptive Taxation Under Section 44B

Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. v. DCIT (International Taxation), Mumbai
[2026] 1 TMI 1121 (ITAT Mumbai), decided on 19 January 2026

The assessee, a non-resident shipping company, was assessed under the presumptive scheme of section 44B in respect of income from operation of ships. The Assessing Officer included GST collected on ancillary charges in the gross receipts for computing deemed income at 7.5%, which was upheld by the DRP. The Tribunal noted that the issue was recurring and had been consistently decided in the assessee’s favour in earlier years. It held that section 44B is a special deeming provision which permits computation only on amounts paid or payable on account of carriage of goods or passengers, and that GST, being a statutory levy collected on behalf of the Government, has no element of income or profit. Including GST would amount to taxing a tax, which is impermissible. The Tribunal further held that section 145A and ICDS provisions cannot override the non-obstante clause in section 44B. Following binding coordinate bench decisions in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal directed exclusion of GST from gross receipts. It also held that section 115JB was inapplicable in view of Explanation 4A and directed grant of correct TDS and advance tax credits with interest. The appeal was allowed.

Jan 26-207

7. Faceless Assessment Quashed for Non-Issuance of Draft Assessment Order and Denial of Natural Justice

Rajan Datar v. Satish Kumar Goyal & Ors.
[2026] 1 TMI 1383 (Bombay High Court), decided on 19 January 2026

The petitioner challenged a faceless assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with sections 144B and 254, contending that no draft assessment order had been furnished prior to passing the final order and that detailed submissions and judicial precedents relied upon by him were ignored. The Revenue did not dispute that no draft assessment order was issued. The High Court held that issuance of a draft assessment order, where the returned income is proposed to be modified, is a mandatory requirement under the faceless assessment scheme and its absence constitutes a serious breach of natural justice. The Court further observed that the revisional authority, while exercising powers under sections 264 and 154, also failed to consider the petitioner’s submissions and could not cure the foundational defect in the original assessment. Relying on its earlier judgments on faceless assessments, the Court quashed the final assessment order as well as the revisional and rectification orders, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration after granting full opportunity of hearing. The Court also directed refund of amounts deposited pursuant to the invalid assessment, in accordance with law.

Section 375

B.—Special provisions for avoiding repetitive appeals

375. (1) Irrespective of anything contained in this Act, where an assessee claims that—

(a) any question of law arising in his case for a tax year pending before the Assessing Officer or any appellate authority (such case being herein referred to as the relevant case) is identical with a question of law arising in his case for another tax year (such case being herein referred to as the other case); and

(b) such question of law for such other case is pending—

(i) before the High Court on a reference under section 256 or on an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; or

(ii) before the Supreme Court on a reference under section 257 or on an appeal under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; or

(iii) before the High Court on an appeal made under section 365; or

(iv) before the Supreme Court on appeal made under section 367; or

(v) in a Special Leave Petition under article 136 of the Constitution, against the order of the Appellate Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court,

he may furnish a declaration to the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed, that if the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority agrees to apply in the relevant case the final decision on the question of law in the other case, he shall not raise such question of law in the relevant case before any appellate authority or in a subsequent appeal before a higher forum.

(2) Where a declaration under sub-section (1) is furnished to any appellate authority, the appellate authority shall––

(a) call for a report from the Assessing Officer on the correctness of the claim made by the assessee; and

(b) allow the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard in the matter, if such request is made by him.

(3) The Assessing Officer or the appellate authority, may, by an order in writing,—

(a) admit the claim of the assessee if he or it is satisfied that the question of law arising in the relevant case is identical with the question of law in the other case; or

(b) reject the claim if he or it is not so satisfied.

(4) An order under sub-section (3) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision under this Act.

(5) Where a claim is admitted under sub-section (3),—

(a) the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority, may make an order disposing of the relevant case without awaiting the final decision on the question of law in the other case; and

(b) the assessee shall not be entitled to raise, in relation to the relevant case, such question of law in appeal before any appellate authority or in any subsequent appeal before a higher forum.

(6) When the decision on the question of law in the other case becomes final, it shall be applied to the relevant case and the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority, shall, if necessary, amend the order referred to in sub-section 5(a) in conformity with such decision.

(7) For the purposes of this section,—

(a) “appellate authority” means the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal;

(b) “case”, in relation to an assessee, means any proceeding under this Act for the assessment of the total income of the assessee or for the imposition of any penalty or fine on him; and

(c) “subsequent appeal before a higher forum” means the appeal before the High Court under section 365 or appeal before the Supreme Court under section 367 or in a Special Leave Petition under article 136 of the Constitution, against the order of the Appellate Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court.

Analysis

Section 375, IT Act 2025

Special Provisions for Avoiding Repetitive Appeals (The “No-Repetition Declaration” Mechanism)

I. Why Section 375 Exists: The Litigation Problem It Targets

Tax litigation is structurally repetitive because the same assessee often faces the same legal issue across multiple years—for example, whether a receipt is capital or revenue, whether a particular deduction is allowable, whether a method of accounting is acceptable, whether a PE exists, whether a particular exemption applies, and so on. In many cases, one year becomes the “lead year” in which the issue travels to the High Court or Supreme Court, while other years remain pending at assessment/CIT(A)/ITAT levels. The conventional system forces:

1. Parallel appeals every year, and

2. Multiple forums deciding the same question repeatedly, and

3. Unnecessary departmental litigation costs, and

4. Risk of inconsistent outcomes.

Section 375 introduces a controlled, statutorily sanctioned “follow-the-lead-case” framework, allowing disposal of repetitive matters without repeated escalation—provided the assessee undertakes not to litigate that same legal question again in the “relevant case.”

II. Section 375(1): The Trigger—Declaration by Assessee

A. Core Conditions

Section 375(1) can be invoked when an assessee claims that:

1. A question of law arising in a pending case for one year (the relevant case) is identical with a question of law in another year (the other case); and

2. The question of law in the other case is already pending before higher judicial forums.

This mechanism is therefore available only when the “other case” is already before:

• High Court (old regime reference/appeal under IT Act 1961: s.256, s.260A), or

• Supreme Court (s.257 reference / s.261 appeal under IT Act 1961), or

• High Court appeal under s.365 (IT Act 2025), or

• Supreme Court appeal under s.367 (IT Act 2025), or

• SLP under Article 136 against ITAT/jurisdictional HC.

In plain terms: one year is the “lead year” pending in higher forum; another year is pending below.

B. The Assessee’s Undertaking: The “Price” of Using Section 375

The assessee must furnish a declaration (in prescribed form) stating:

• If the AO/appellate authority agrees to apply the final decision in the other case to the relevant case, then

• The assessee will not raise that question of law in the relevant case before any appellate authority or in later higher appeals.

This is the heart of the provision: a statutory waiver / undertaking against repetitive litigation.

C. What Kind of Issues Qualify?

The language is “question of law.” Therefore, the mechanism is best suited for:

• Interpretation of a statutory provision

• Eligibility or scope of deduction/exemption

• Legal characterisation (capital vs revenue, business vs non-business)

• Jurisdictional questions

• Treaty interpretation issues (in international tax)

• Validity or application of rules/notifications

It is not ideal where outcome turns on year-specific facts, because “identical question of law” becomes contestable.

III. Section 375(2): Safeguards Where Declaration is Before Appellate Authority

If the declaration is filed before CIT(A)/JCIT(A)/ITAT, the appellate authority must:

1. Call for a report from the AO on correctness of the assessee’s claim that the legal question is identical; and

2. Give AO an opportunity of being heard if AO asks.

This is an important safeguard. It prevents misuse by ensuring that Revenue can contest “identity” of issue. The provision consciously avoids a unilateral assessee-driven shortcut.

IV. Section 375(3): Admission or Rejection by Written Order

The AO or appellate authority may pass a written order:

• Admitting the claim if satisfied that the legal question is identical; or

• Rejecting it if not satisfied.

A. Practical Meaning of “Identical”

“Identical” is stronger than “similar.” It implies:

• Same statutory provision (or substantially same),

• Same legal issue,

• Same material legal context,

• And no distinguishing factual features that alter legal application.

If there are material differences, the authority can reject.

V. Section 375(4): Finality and Non-Appealability of Admission/Rejection Order

This is a strong clause: an order under sub-section (3) is final and cannot be questioned by appeal or revision.

A. Policy Reason

If admission/rejection itself were appealable, Section 375 would create a new layer of litigation. Finality is essential for the device to reduce disputes rather than add disputes.

B. Implication for Taxpayers and Revenue

• Taxpayers must ensure their declaration is carefully framed because rejection is final.

• Revenue must ensure the AO’s report (to appellate authority) is accurate and well-reasoned because admission is also final.

VI. Section 375(5): Disposal of Relevant Case Without Waiting + Waiver of Further Challenge

Once claim is admitted:

(a) Authority may dispose of relevant case without awaiting final decision

The AO/appellate authority can dispose the relevant case immediately—this is administrative efficiency.

(b) Assessee is barred from raising that legal question further

This is the statutory consequence: the assessee cannot raise that question in:

• Appeals before any appellate authority, or

• Subsequent appeals before higher forum (HC/SC/SLP).

This is the “anti-repetition” effect.

Key Point:

Section 375 is voluntary. The assessee chooses this route to avoid multiple litigations, but gives up the right to independently contest that issue in the relevant year.

VII. Section 375(6): Automatic Alignment Once Lead Case Becomes Final

When the lead case (“other case”) reaches finality, the final decision must be applied to the relevant case. If necessary, the AO/appellate authority must amend the order disposing of relevant case to conform with the final decision.

Practical Effect

• If Supreme Court decides in assessee’s favour → relevant year must be amended accordingly.

• If Supreme Court decides against assessee → relevant year must be amended correspondingly.

This ensures consistency and eliminates parallel litigation.

VIII. Section 375(7): Definitions That Matter

A. “Appellate authority”

Limited to:

• JCIT(A) / CIT(A) / ITAT

So DRP is not mentioned here; but “case” includes penalty and fine proceedings. This suggests Section 375 is primarily meant for the regular appellate chain, though its logic can influence other dispute-resolution processes.

B. “Case”

Includes:

• Assessment proceedings, and

• Penalty/fine proceedings

So if a legal issue relates to penalty interpretation (e.g., whether mens rea is required, whether penalty is automatic), Section 375 could theoretically apply.

C. “Subsequent appeal before higher forum”

Defined expressly to include:

• High Court appeal under s.365,

• Supreme Court appeal under s.367, and

• SLP under Article 136.

Thus the bar is comprehensive: it blocks all higher escalation on that question in the relevant case.

IX. How Section 375 Works in Real Life: Step-by-Step Model

Step 1: Identify a “Lead Case”

Suppose AY 2021-22 issue is before Supreme Court (other case). AY 2022-23 is pending before CIT(A) or ITAT or AO (relevant case).

Step 2: File Declaration in Relevant Case

Assessee states: “I will accept final decision in lead case; I will not litigate this issue further in relevant case.”

Step 3: AO/Appellate Authority Tests Identity

If before appellate authority → AO report + hearing.

Step 4: Admission Order Under 375(3)(a)

If admitted, relevant case can be disposed quickly—often by making an order noting that it shall follow outcome in lead case.

Step 5: Final Decision in Lead Case

When lead case decision becomes final, authority amends relevant case order accordingly.

X. Benefits and Risks: Balanced Guidance

A. Benefits for Taxpayers

1. Cost reduction: avoids fighting same issue year after year.

2. Time saving: faster disposal of pending matters.

3. Uniformity: avoids inconsistent orders across years.

4. Focus: concentrate resources on lead year litigation.

B. Risks for Taxpayers

1. Waiver effect: cannot independently challenge in relevant year.

2. Identity disputes: authority may reject claim as non-identical, and rejection is final.

3. Lead case loss: if lead year goes against assessee, all linked years follow.

Therefore, taxpayers should invoke Section 375 when:

• They are confident in lead case merits, and

• Identity of issue is robust and defensible.

C. Benefits for Revenue / Tax Administration

1. Reduced docket load: fewer repetitive appeals.

2. Consistency: uniform application of final law.

3. Efficient resource allocation: concentrate on lead case.

4. Administrative certainty: avoids multiple inconsistent orders.

D. Risks for Revenue

1. If lead case is weak, revenue may lose across years automatically.

2. If AO admits identity casually, later correction is not possible (finality clause).

3. Requires careful screening.

XI. Doctrinal Significance: What Section 375 Represents

Section 375 is a statutory mechanism that institutionalises three core doctrines:

1. Judicial economy: courts should not repeatedly decide identical legal issues.

2. Consistency in tax administration: same assessee, same issue, should not produce inconsistent results.

3. Finality of law: once apex forum decides, the law should settle across years.

It is somewhat comparable in spirit to:

• “Test case” procedures in some administrative systems, and

• The idea of “lead case and tagged matters” used in constitutional litigation.

But Section 375 is unique because it builds the mechanism directly into tax statute, with a binding waiver.

XII. Practical Drafting and Compliance Notes

For Assessees / Counsel

• Clearly identify the exact question of law.

• Specify the forum where the “other case” is pending and its reference/appeal number.

• Demonstrate identicality: same provision, same transaction pattern, same reasoning.

• Ensure declaration explicitly waives re-agitation in relevant case.

For AO / CIT(A) / ITAT

• Record reasoning on identicality carefully.

• If admitted, ensure the order contains a clear “follow-final-decision” direction.

• Maintain internal tracking so that once final decision arrives, amendment is promptly made.

XIII. Illustrative Examples

Example 1: Allowability of ESOP Deduction

If AY 2020-21 ESOP deduction issue is pending in Supreme Court, and AY 2021-22 is pending at ITAT, Section 375 can tag AY 2021-22 to final SC outcome.

Example 2: Permanent Establishment Issue in International Tax

If PE existence issue for one year is before HC/SC and the same factual and legal PE question arises in adjacent years, Section 375 can avoid multiple parallel litigation.

Example 3: Penalty Interpretation Issue

If the legal question is whether a penalty provision requires satisfaction recording, and that is pending in HC for one year, the same legal question for another year can be linked.

XIV. Conclusion

Section 375 is a sophisticated “anti-repetition” device that balances efficiency with fairness. It is voluntary for the assessee but once invoked and admitted, it creates:

• Speedy disposal of pending year,

• Statutory bar against further litigation on that point in that year,

• Automatic application of final decision in lead year.

For taxpayers, it is a strategic tool to reduce costs and uncertainty when confident in the lead case. For tax officers, it is a governance tool to reduce unnecessary litigation and ensure uniformity—provided identity is assessed carefully and orders are well-reasoned.

MODEL DECLARATION

Under Section 375(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025

(Special Provision for Avoiding Repetitive Appeals)

Before:
[Name and Designation of Authority

[Office Address]

In the case of:

Name of Assessee: ___________________________PAN: ___________________________
Assessment Year: ___________________________Proceeding No. / Appeal No.: ___________________________

DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 375(1)

I/We, ___________________________, the Assessee in the above-captioned proceeding (hereinafter referred to as “the relevant case”), hereby submit this declaration under Section 375(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025, and respectfully state as under:

1. Identification of Relevant Case

The present proceeding relates to Assessment Year ____________, which is pending before your good office in connection with:

☐Assessment proceedings

☐Appeal before JCIT(A)/CIT(A)

☐ Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal

☐ Penalty proceedings

☐ Other (specify): ___________________

In the said proceeding, the following question of law arises:

(Clearly and precisely state the question of law)

Example format:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred on ________ is allowable as deduction under Section ______ of the Income-tax Act, 2025?”

2. Identification of the Other Case (Lead Case)

The above-stated question of law is identical with the question of law arising in the Assessee’s own case for:

Assessment Year: ___________________________

Forum where pending: ___________________________

Case/Appeal/Reference/SLP No.: ___________________________

The said matter (hereinafter referred to as “the other case”) is presently pending before:

☐ High Court under Section 365

☐ Supreme Court under Section 367

☐ Special Leave Petition under Article 136

☐ (If under old Act proceedings, specify relevant section and forum)

The question of law involved in the other case is identically framed as follows:

(Reproduce the exact question of law as framed before the higher forum)

3. Assertion of Identity

It is respectfully submitted that:

(a) The statutory provisions involved in both cases are identical;
(b) The material facts relevant to determination of the question of law are substantially the same;

(c) The controversy in both years is purely legal in nature and does not depend upon differing factual matrices;

(d) The issue raised in the relevant case is directly covered by and dependent upon the outcome of the other case.

Accordingly, the question of law in the relevant case is identical to the question of law in the other case within the meaning of Section 375(1).

4. Undertaking Under Section 375(1)

In consideration of the Assessing Officer/Appellate Authority agreeing to apply in the relevant case the final decision on the aforesaid question of law in the other case, the Assessee hereby solemnly declares and undertakes that:

1. The Assessee shall not raise or agitate the said question of law in the relevant case before any appellate authority;

2. The Assessee shall not raise or agitate the said question of law in any subsequent appeal before a higher forum (including appeal under Section 365, appeal under Section 367, or Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution);

3. The Assessee agrees that the final decision rendered in the other case shall be binding and shall be applied to the relevant case;

4. The Assessee shall abide by such final decision, whether in favour of or against the Assessee.

5. Prayer

In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that:

(a) The claim under Section 375(1) be admitted under Section 375(3)(a);
(b) The relevant case be disposed of in accordance with Section 375(5);
(c) The final decision in the other case be applied to the relevant case in terms of Section 375(6).

6. Verification

I/We hereby declare that the statements made above are true to the best of my/our knowledge and belief and that no material fact has been suppressed.

Place: __________________
Date: __________________

Signature: ___________________________
Name: ___________________________
Designation (if applicable): ___________________________

For and on behalf of: ___________________________

Annexures (Optional but Recommended)

1. Copy of order/appeal memo in the “other case”

2. Copy of question of law framed by High Court/Supreme Court

3. Comparative chart showing identity of legal issue

4. Proof of pendency of other case

Practical Notes for Use

• The “question of law” must be framed carefully and precisely.

• Avoid vague descriptions such as “allowability of deduction.”

• Ensure that the issue is genuinely identical and not fact-sensitive.

• If filed before appellate authority, expect that a report from AO will be called for under Section 375(2).

CHECKLIST

Determination of “Identical Question of Law”

Section 375, Income-tax Act, 2025

I. Preliminary Jurisdictional Conditions

☐ 1. Is the relevant case presently pending before the AO / appellate authority?

☐ 2. Has the assessee furnished a written declaration in prescribed form?

☐ 3. Is the “other case” pending before one of the specified forums under Section 375(1)(b)?

  ☐ High Court (Section 365 / old regime 260A/256)

  ☐ Supreme Court (Section 367 / old regime 261/257)

  ☐ Special Leave Petition under Article 136

☐ 4. Has documentary proof of pendency of the “other case” been filed?

If any of the above is “No,” Section 375 cannot be invoked.

II. Identification of the Question of Law

☐ 5. Has the assessee clearly framed the specific question of law?

☐ 6. Is the same question of law formally framed before the higher forum in the other case?

☐ 7. Is the issue purely legal (interpretation of statute / treaty / rule / notification) and not dependent on factual appreciation?

III. Identity Test: Legal and Factual Matrix

A. Statutory Identity

☐ 8. Are the same statutory provisions involved in both cases?

☐ 9. Has there been any amendment in law between the relevant year and the other year?

☐ 10. If amended, does the amendment materially alter the legal position?

If the legal provision differs materially, the issue may not be identical.

B. Factual Identity (Material Facts Only)

☐ 11. Are the material facts giving rise to the legal question substantially the same?

☐ 12. Is the legal issue independent of minor factual variations?

☐ 13. Would a different factual finding alter the legal determination?

If outcome depends on year-specific facts, identity fails.

IV. Nature of Issue

☐ 14. Is the issue a recurring interpretational issue (e.g., allowability of deduction, characterization of income, treaty interpretation, jurisdictional validity)?

☐ 15. Is it a question of fact or mixed fact and law requiring fresh evaluation?

  (If predominantly factual, Section 375 should not be admitted.)

V. Litigation Status of Other Case

☐ 16. Is the other case at a stage where the question of law has been formally admitted/framed?

☐ 17. Is the issue central to the other case’s outcome?

☐ 18. Is there any distinguishing feature raised by Revenue in the relevant case not present in the other case?

VI. Procedural Safeguards (If before Appellate Authority)

☐ 19. Has a report been called for from the AO under Section 375(2)?

☐ 20. Has AO been given opportunity of hearing if requested?

VII. Risk and Consistency Assessment

☐ 21. Would inconsistent adjudication arise if Section 375 is not applied?

☐ 22. Would admission of claim promote judicial economy and avoid repetitive appeals?

☐ 23. Is there any pending contrary binding decision of jurisdictional High Court that already settles the issue?

If jurisdictional High Court has already decided, Section 375 may be unnecessary.

VIII. Declaration Compliance

☐ 24. Has the assessee expressly undertaken not to raise the question of law in future appeals in the relevant case?

☐ 25. Is the declaration unconditional and clear?

Decision Matrix

Admit under Section 375(3)(a) if:

✔ Same statutory provision

✔ Same framed legal question

✔ No material factual distinction

✔ Issue purely legal

✔ Other case genuinely pending before specified forum

✔ Assessee’s waiver is clear and unconditional

Reject under Section 375(3)(b) if:

✘ Different statutory provision or amended law

✘ Issue fact-specific or mixed fact-law requiring fresh evaluation

✘ Material factual distinctions exist

✘ No formal pendency of legal question in higher forum

✘ Assessee’s declaration defective or conditional

Key Reminder

• Order admitting or rejecting claim is final and non-appealable under Section 375(4).

• Reasons must be recorded clearly and concisely.

• Identity must be evaluated strictly — similarity is not enough; it must be legally identical.

Above file can also be viewed at:

https://1drv.ms/b/c/0f527a60e6f7d291/IQBZYopcVGaQR5_H32Hh6u_LAcW8ZHqo1ihbYRZm_Ss23Gk?e=2vL9Ko

MAXIMS RELATING TO EQUITY AND JUSTICE

Conscience, Conduct, and Judicial Discipline in Indian, UK, and US Jurisprudence

Abstract

Equity developed as a corrective to the rigidity of formal law. In contemporary constitutional democracies, equitable maxims continue to influence judicial reasoning in statutory interpretation, writ jurisdiction, contract enforcement, taxation, administrative law, and constitutional adjudication. This research paper examines four foundational equitable maxims: (1) Equitas sequitur legem (Equity follows the law); (2) He who seeks equity must do equity; (3) He who comes into equity must come with clean hands; and (4) Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta (External acts indicate inner intent). The study explores doctrinal evolution, Supreme Court jurisprudence in India (with specific paragraph citations), and comparative perspectives from the United Kingdom and United States. It argues that these maxims function as structural principles ensuring that judicial discretion remains principled, that litigation is grounded in good faith, and that intent is inferred objectively from conduct. The paper also examines tensions between equity and statutory supremacy, especially in taxation and administrative law.

I. Introduction: Equity as the Moral Architecture of Law

Equity historically emerged in England through the Court of Chancery as a response to the inflexibility of common law writs. While common law emphasised formal rights and rigid remedies, equity developed doctrines grounded in conscience and fairness. However, equity was never intended to replace law; rather, it was to supplement it. The fusion of law and equity in modern jurisdictions has not eliminated equitable reasoning; instead, it has internalised equitable principles within statutory interpretation and constitutional adjudication.

In India, where constitutional supremacy coexists with legislative sovereignty within constitutional bounds, equitable maxims shape judicial remedies under Articles 32 and 226, guide interpretation of statutes, influence grant of injunctions, and inform assessment of litigant conduct. The Supreme Court frequently invokes equitable doctrines in taxation, contract disputes, public interest litigation, and administrative review.

This paper examines four equitable maxims central to contemporary jurisprudence.

II. Equitas Sequitur Legem — Equity Follows the Law

A. Conceptual Meaning

The maxim signifies that equity operates within the boundaries of law. Courts cannot use equitable principles to contradict explicit statutory provisions. Equity may supplement but cannot supplant statute.

This principle preserves separation of powers and ensures that judicial discretion does not transgress legislative mandate.

B. Indian Supreme Court Jurisprudence

1. CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC)

In this landmark taxation case, the issue concerned waiver of interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court held that where statute mandates levy of interest, neither Settlement Commission nor authorities can waive it on equitable grounds unless statute expressly permits.

Key observations:

The Court held (para 27–30) that statutory command must prevail and equitable considerations cannot override mandatory provisions. The judgment underscores that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly, and equity cannot dilute legislative intent.

This is a textbook application of equitas sequitur legem.

2. Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 453

The Supreme Court reiterated that equitable considerations are irrelevant when statute is clear. The Court emphasised (para 10–11) that hardship or unfairness cannot be a ground to read down plain language.

3. A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala (1957 SCR 837)

The Court held that in taxation there is no room for intendment or equity. Taxing statutes must be construed strictly.

This reinforces that equity follows law particularly in fiscal matters.

C. Constitutional Dimension

The doctrine also restrains courts from invoking equity to ignore constitutional text. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592, the Supreme Court emphasised constitutional structure over equitable arguments.

D. UK Perspective

In English law, after the Judicature Acts (1873–75), equity prevails in cases of conflict, but equity still follows statute. In Pankhania v. Hackney LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 1850, the Court of Appeal held that equitable doctrines cannot contradict statutory scheme.

E. US Perspective

In the United States, the Supreme Court in INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (1988) held that courts cannot confer citizenship through equity where statute does not permit. Justice Scalia noted that equity cannot override explicit statutory limitations.

F. Doctrinal Balance

Thus, while equity tempers rigidity, it does not rewrite statute. Courts may use equitable interpretation where ambiguity exists, but not to subvert legislative text.

III. He Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity

A. Meaning and Theoretical Basis

This maxim demands reciprocity. A litigant asking for equitable relief must himself act equitably. Courts do not grant relief to a party unwilling to comply with corresponding obligations.

B. Indian Supreme Court Decisions

1. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. (1995) 5 SCC 545

The Supreme Court held (para 47–48) that a party seeking injunction must show willingness to perform its own contractual obligations. Injunction is discretionary and cannot be granted where applicant is in breach.

2. Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449

The Court held (para 33–35) that writ jurisdiction is equitable. A petitioner who does not act fairly or suppresses facts is not entitled to relief. The Court emphasised that one who seeks equity must do equity.

3. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1

The Court observed (para 5) that a litigant who approaches court must be candid and fair. Relief obtained by suppression can be revoked.

C. Application in Tax Litigation

In tax matters:

• Stay of demand is conditional upon partial payment.

• Settlement applications require full disclosure.

• Assessee seeking refund must not conceal material facts.

Courts often impose conditions such as deposit of disputed tax before granting interim protection.

D. UK Position

English courts in Snell’s Equity emphasise reciprocity in granting injunctions and specific performance. In Coatsworth v. Johnson (1886) 54 LT 520, equitable relief was denied due to inequitable conduct of applicant.

E. US Jurisprudence

In Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court held that equitable relief requires good faith and fairness. A party seeking equitable relief must not act unconscionably.

IV. He Who Comes into Equity Must Come with Clean Hands

A. Meaning

The clean hands doctrine bars relief to litigants who engage in fraud, suppression, misrepresentation, or inequitable conduct relating to the subject matter of litigation.

B. Indian Supreme Court Case Law

1. Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 114

Justice G.S. Singhvi criticised the culture of falsehood in litigation (para 1–5). The Court refused relief to litigants who suppressed facts.

2. K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481

The Court held (para 34–36) that suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant from discretionary relief.

3. Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 38

The Court emphasised that suppression of material facts is sufficient to deny equitable relief.

C. Application in Writ Jurisdiction

Article 226 is discretionary. Courts routinely deny relief if petitioner:

• Suppresses parallel proceedings,

• Fails to disclose prior adverse orders,

• Misrepresents material facts.

D. Tax Jurisprudence

In reassessment challenges, suppression of earlier filings or proceedings can defeat writ relief. Courts examine conduct before granting interim stay.

E. UK Perspective

In Dering v. Earl of Winchelsea (1787) 1 Cox 318, the doctrine was articulated: he who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

F. US Jurisprudence

In Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240 (1933), the U.S. Supreme Court refused equitable relief due to plaintiff’s misconduct.

The doctrine remains central in patent and injunction cases.

V. Acta Exteriora Indicant Interiora Secreta — External Acts Indicate Inner Intent

A. Conceptual Meaning

This maxim means that courts infer intention from outward conduct. Internal mental state is determined from external acts.

B. Indian Supreme Court Jurisprudence

1. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)

The Court (per Chinnappa Reddy J.) held that colourable devices to evade tax cannot be accepted. Courts must look at substance and conduct.

2. Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC)

The Court examined transaction structure and commercial substance. While rejecting aggressive anti-avoidance approach of McDowell, it reaffirmed that conduct and structure reveal intent (para 64–69).

3. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)

The Court held that taxing authorities are entitled to look at surrounding circumstances to ascertain reality of transaction.

This is a clear invocation of the maxim.

C. Criminal and Administrative Law

Intent in criminal law is inferred from conduct. In administrative law, mala fides is inferred from sequence of events and actions.

D. UK Position

In R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Khawaja [1984] AC 74, intent was inferred from objective conduct.

E. US Jurisprudence

In United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997), intent in securities fraud was inferred from conduct and circumstances.

VI. Comparative Synthesis

Across India, UK, and US:

• Equity follows statute.

• Relief is conditional upon fairness.

• Suppression defeats remedy.

• Intent is inferred from conduct.

The doctrines are remarkably consistent despite structural differences in legal systems.

VII. Tensions and Contemporary Relevance

A. Equity vs Statutory Rigidity

In taxation, equity is subordinate to statute. Yet procedural fairness is guided by equity.

B. Clean Hands in Public Law

Public interest litigation has raised concerns about motivated litigation. Clean hands doctrine filters misuse.

C. Substance over Form in Global Taxation

Modern anti-avoidance rules rely heavily on inference of intent from structure and conduct.

VIII. Conclusion

The equitable maxims examined here operate as constitutional guardrails for judicial discretion. They ensure that:

• Courts respect statutory limits (equity follows law).

• Litigants behave fairly (must do equity).

• Relief is denied to dishonest actors (clean hands).

• Intention is assessed objectively (external acts reveal intent).

Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence reflects mature integration of these principles within constitutional and statutory frameworks. Comparative UK and US law demonstrates shared foundational commitment to equity as conscience of law—disciplined by statute, grounded in fairness, and informed by conduct

Further notes:

1.

Aequitas Sequitur Legem (”equity follows the law”) is a foundational maxim establishing that equity supplements rather than overrides established legal rules, particularly statutes. It dictates that where a legal rule is clear, equity cannot intervene to create a different result, ensuring consistency and preventing judicial discretion from supplanting legislation.

Key Landmark and Indian Case Laws:

• Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615): Established that while equity can soften the harshness of common law, it cannot act against statutory law.

• Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank (2007) 2 SCC 230: The Supreme Court of India held that when there is a conflict between law and equity, the law must prevail, citing dura lex sed lex (the law is hard, but it is the law).

• Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633: Affirmed that considerations of fairness must yield to clear, express provisions of law.

• Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882): Highlighted that equitable interests must still conform to the legal requirements governing the subject matter.

• Cowper vs. Cowper: Held that equity follows the law by molding new equitable interests that possess most of the incidents of the corresponding legal estates.

• E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (2003) 1 SCC 123: Reiterated that if a statute requires a specific act to be done, equity cannot allow it to be done in a different manner.

Core Principles Applied in Cases:

• Equity follows the law in limitations: Where the legislature has fixed a time limit, equity cannot extend it.

• Legal rights prevail: If two parties have equal equitable claims, the one with the legal title wins.

• No new rights: Equity does not create rights, but rather enforces them based on the legal framework.

Aequitas Sequitur Legem (”equity follows the law”) is a foundational maxim establishing that equity supplements rather than overrides established legal rules, particularly statutes. It dictates that where a legal rule is clear, equity cannot intervene to create a different result, ensuring consistency and preventing judicial discretion from supplanting legislation.

2. Key Landmark and Indian Case Laws:

i. Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615): Established that while equity can soften the harshness of common law, it cannot act against statutory law.

ii. Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank (2007) 2 SCC 230: The Supreme Court of India held that when there is a conflict between law and equity, the law must prevail, citing dura lex sed lex (the law is hard, but it is the law).

iii. Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633: Affirmed that considerations of fairness must yield to clear, express provisions of law.

iv. Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882): Highlighted that equitable interests must still conform to the legal requirements governing the subject matter.

v. Cowper vs. Cowper: Held that equity follows the law by molding new equitable interests that possess most of the incidents of the corresponding legal estates.

vi. E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (2003) 1 SCC 123: Reiterated that if a statute requires a specific act to be done, equity cannot allow it to be done in a different manner.

3. Core Principles Applied in Cases:

i. Equity follows the law in limitations: Where the legislature has fixed a time limit, equity cannot extend it.

ii. Legal rights prevail: If two parties have equal equitable claims, the one with the legal title wins.

iii. No new rights: Equity does not create rights, but rather enforces them based on the legal framework.

ABOVE FILE CAN ALSO BE VIEWED AT:

https://1drv.ms/b/c/0f527a60e6f7d291/IQDlOho9eqeSS55YRqe_nlSxAaA8TkDdxUbdGJms47QXh0s?e=sRTcJR

Vibhavari Bharat Bhatt v. Income-tax Officer (International Taxation)
[2026] 183 taxmann.com 454 (Bom.) (HC), decided on 09-02-2026
(Sections 148, 148A, 151A, 144C, 147, 156)

1. Main Ratio as Catch Note (Core Holding)

The Bombay High Court held that under the reassessment regime governed by the scheme framed under Section 151A, a notice under Section 148 issued after 29-03-2022 must be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Where the JAO issues such notice, the defect is not a curable procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect going to the root, vitiating the entire reassessment chain. The Court further held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), being a statutory authority functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, is bound to follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court; it cannot disregard that binding precedent and instead rely on contrary views of other High Courts. Where the DRP refused to apply Hexaware and characterised the jurisdictional defect as “technical/procedural,” the High Court quashed not only the DRP directions but also the foundational notices and orders—Section 148A(b) show cause notice, Section 148A(d) order, Section 148 notice, reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13), and consequential demand under Section 156. The judgment is also notable for its emphatic institutional message: non-compliance with jurisdictional High Court rulings by tax authorities may attract contempt consequences in future.

2. Facts of the Case (Chronology and Procedural History)

The petitioner-assessee challenged a sequence of reassessment and DRP-related actions: a notice under Section 148A(b) dated 29-03-2023, an order under Section 148A(d) dated 04-05-2023, a notice under Section 148 dated 04-05-2023, DRP directions under Section 144C(5) dated 30-12-2025, a reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) dated 23-01-2026, and a consequential demand notice under Section 156 dated 23-01-2026. The short but decisive factual premise was undisputed: the Section 148 notice had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This fact placed the dispute squarely within the legal controversy already decided in Hexaware Technologies, where Bombay High Court had held that post-29-03-2022 Section 148 notices must be issued through the faceless mechanism under the Section 151A scheme.

The matter, however, had a layered procedural history because the assessee had approached the High Court more than once. Initially, the petitioner filed a writ challenging the Section 148A(d) order and Section 148 notice. That petition was disposed of by the High Court (order dated 07-04-2025) essentially on the ground of alternate statutory route: the petitioner could raise the issue while challenging the consequent draft assessment order before the DRP. The petitioner thereafter filed objections before DRP against the draft order. But a procedural lapse occurred: under Section 144C(2)(b)(ii), the assessee must intimate the AO about filing DRP objections. Since the assessee did not intimate the AO, the AO proceeded to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(3)(b) read with Section 144C(4) on 22-05-2025. The DRP then treated the objections as non-est and disposed them as such by order dated 30-06-2025.

The assessee again approached the High Court and, by order dated 25-08-2025, the High Court set aside the AO’s final order and the DRP’s non-est order, revived the objections and directed the DRP to decide them afresh in accordance with law, explicitly noting that the DRP should consider the assessee’s contentions, including applicability of Hexaware Technologies. After remand, the DRP passed directions dated 30-12-2025 under Section 144C(5). Instead of applying Hexaware, the DRP took the view that Hexaware had been “deviated from” by a later Bombay High Court decision in J.D. Printers, relied upon Gujarat High Court decisions, and concluded that issuance of Section 148 notice by the JAO rather than FAO was a mere procedural irregularity. Acting upon these DRP directions, the AO passed the reassessment order dated 23-01-2026 under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) and raised demand under Section 156.

The petitioner therefore filed the present writ petition, primarily on the ground that the authorities, and in particular the DRP, refused to follow binding Bombay High Court precedent in Hexaware Technologies, thereby perpetuating a reassessment that was jurisdictionally void.

3. Decision of the AO and Reasons for Such Decision (Reassessment Chain and Jurisdictional Dependency)

In the reassessment regime after the 2021 amendments (Section 148A etc.), the reassessment chain proceeds through: (i) Section 148A(b) show cause notice, (ii) Section 148A(d) decision order, (iii) Section 148 notice, followed by reassessment proceedings culminating in an order under Section 147. In the present case, the AO issued the Section 148A(b) notice on 29-03-2023, passed the Section 148A(d) order on 04-05-2023, and issued Section 148 notice on the same date. A draft assessment order dated 27-03-2025 was issued. The petitioner took objections to the DRP. Due to the procedural lapse of non-intimation to AO, the AO passed a final assessment order under Section 144C(3)(b) read with Section 144C(4) on 22-05-2025. After the High Court set aside that final order and revived objections, the AO later passed the reassessment order dated 23-01-2026 under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) pursuant to DRP directions.

From the standpoint of jurisdiction, the AO’s “reason” for proceeding (as reflected in the later stages) was essentially a reliance on the validity of the notices and on the DRP’s directions. However, the High Court treated the entire chain as derivative: if the foundation—i.e., the Section 148 notice—was jurisdictionally invalid because it was issued by the wrong authority (JAO instead of FAO), then the AO’s later acts, however procedurally compliant within the DRP track, would be infected by the initial lack of jurisdiction.

The AO’s final reassessment and demand were therefore not tested on merits in this writ; they were undone because they rested on a jurisdictional foundation that the High Court considered void. This is a critical doctrinal point: in reassessment law, jurisdictional defects are not cured by subsequent proceedings, and even adherence to later procedural stages cannot validate a defective initiation.

4. Analysis of Facts and Decision by DRP with Reasons (Error of Treating Jurisdictional Defect as Procedural)

The DRP’s post-remand role was central because the High Court had earlier directed it to decide the objections on merits and to consider Hexaware. Despite that, the DRP declined to grant relief. The DRP’s reasoning, as captured in the judgment, had three pillars:

1. Hexaware Technologies had allegedly been “deviated from” by the Bombay High Court in J.D. Printers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO; hence Hexaware was not controlling.

2. Even if Hexaware applied, the assessee’s objection was “technical/opportunistic” rather than substantive.

3. Decisions of the Gujarat High Court (specifically Snehdham Trust and Talati and Talati LLP) supported the view that issuance of notice by JAO rather than FAO was a procedural irregularity, not fatal to reassessment.

On this basis, the DRP characterised the defect (JAO issuing Section 148 after 29-03-2022) as merely procedural, not going to the root. It therefore upheld the AO’s action and rejected the assessee’s objections.

The Bombay High Court found this approach fundamentally flawed. First, the DRP’s understanding of J.D. Printers was described as a “complete misunderstanding” because J.D. Printers, far from diluting Hexaware, had actually granted relief on the basis of Hexaware. Second, the High Court held that once the jurisdictional High Court has laid down the law, the DRP cannot ignore it and prefer a different High Court’s view. Third, the High Court criticised the DRP’s statement that the issue was “procedural,” because Hexaware had explicitly treated it as jurisdictional and vitiating.

Thus, the DRP’s “reasons” were rejected not merely as incorrect but as institutionally impermissible: it is not open to a subordinate statutory authority within the jurisdiction to treat binding precedent as optional.

5. Analysis of Facts and Decision with Reasons Given by the High Court in the Writ (Jurisdiction, Binding Precedent, Remedies)

The High Court’s decision proceeds on a set of interlocking legal propositions, each rooted in judicial discipline and jurisdictional logic.

(A) Binding nature of Hexaware and jurisdictional defect (JAO vs FAO)

The Court reaffirmed what it had held in Hexaware Technologies: after examining the scheme framed under Section 151A, it concluded that a Section 148 notice issued after 29-03-2022 could not be issued by the Jurisdictional AO; it had to be issued by the Faceless AO. That requirement was not treated as a mere matter of convenience; it was treated as a jurisdictional condition. Since in the present case it was undisputed that the Section 148 notice was issued by JAO, the matter was “squarely covered” by Hexaware. This immediately meant the Section 148 notice could not stand and, with it, the reassessment edifice collapsed.

(B) DRP’s refusal to follow jurisdictional precedent and the doctrine of judicial discipline

The High Court was particularly sharp on the DRP’s refusal to follow Hexaware. Even if a statutory authority believes the jurisdictional High Court’s ruling is incorrect, it is bound to follow it. The High Court emphasised that the DRP had “absolutely no respect” for binding orders if it could so openly characterise a jurisdictional defect (held by High Court to be fatal) as a procedural irregularity. The Court’s reasoning rests on the constitutional hierarchy: within the territory, the High Court’s declaration of law binds all authorities, and administrative adjudicators cannot treat it as persuasive at best.

(C) Error in relying on non-jurisdictional High Court judgments against jurisdictional High Court law

The DRP’s reliance on Gujarat High Court decisions was held to be misconceived. The High Court’s doctrinal position is straightforward: where jurisdictional High Court has spoken, an authority cannot ignore it and adopt another High Court’s contrary view. This is not a matter of choosing “better reasoning” but a matter of institutional obedience. The Court therefore rejected the DRP’s comparative reliance model.

(D) Rejection of Revenue’s preliminary objections: res judicata, alternate remedy, and suppression

The Revenue raised three major objections:

1. Res judicata / finality: Since earlier writs had been filed challenging Section 148 and were not entertained, the present writ should be barred. The High Court rejected this because earlier writ disposal allowed the assessee to pursue DRP remedy and raise Hexaware before DRP; the present writ arose because DRP refused to follow Hexaware, creating a new grievance and continuing illegality. Therefore, res judicata did not apply.

2. Alternate remedy before ITAT: Revenue argued that final reassessment order is appealable to ITAT, hence writ should not be entertained. The High Court rejected this because the challenge raised a pure jurisdictional issue (competence of JAO to issue notice under Section 148 after 29-03-2022), and also because DRP’s conduct involved refusal to follow binding precedent. For such jurisdictional infirmities, writ is maintainable and the petitioner need not be relegated to alternate remedy.

3. Suppression: Revenue alleged suppression of an interim order dated 11-03-2025 passed in the first writ petition. The High Court rejected this as irrelevant because the interim order merged in the final disposal order dated 07-04-2025, which was not suppressed. The Court treated this objection as an argument of desperation rather than substance.

(E) Relief granted: quashing the entire chain

Because the foundational defect was jurisdictional, and because DRP’s refusal to follow binding precedent was itself fatal, the High Court quashed the full set of impugned actions specified in the prayer clause: Section 148A(b) notice, Section 148A(d) order, Section 148 notice, DRP directions under Section 144C(5), reassessment order under Section 147 read with 144C(13), and demand under Section 156.

(F) Institutional warning: future contempt exposure

A striking feature is the Court’s cautionary note: authorities must follow jurisdictional High Court orders “whether they like it or not,” and failure may invite contempt. This is not mere rhetoric. It is a constitutional reminder that administrative decision-makers cannot undermine judicial supremacy by treating precedent as optional. In the tax system, where institutional compliance is essential for certainty, such warnings signal that repeated disregard will not be tolerated.

7. Summary Analysis of Case Laws Referred in the Judgment (Doctrinal Role and How They Were Used)

The High Court’s order is short but anchored in a small set of critical precedents that serve distinct doctrinal functions:

(A) Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 / 464 ITR 430 (Bom.)

This is the controlling authority and the backbone of the judgment. Hexaware examined the Section 151A scheme and concluded that post-29-03-2022, issuance of Section 148 notice must be by FAO and not by JAO. It treated a JAO-issued notice as a jurisdictional defect. In the present case, the Court applied Hexaware as directly covering the dispute and used it to strike down the initiation and consequential proceedings.

(B) J.D. Printers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 166 taxmann.com 321 / 468 ITR 178 (Bom.)

This was referenced by the DRP to claim that Hexaware had been deviated from. The High Court clarified that the DRP misunderstood it: J.D. Printers actually allowed the challenge relying on Hexaware, thereby reinforcing rather than weakening Hexaware. The case thus became an illustration of how misreading precedent can lead to institutional error.

(C) Snehdham Trust v. ACIT [2025] 181 taxmann.com 98 (Guj.)

Relied upon by the DRP to suggest that JAO issuance of notice is procedural irregularity. The High Court held that reliance on Gujarat High Court rulings was misconceived once Bombay High Court (jurisdictional) had already settled the issue. Therefore, this case served as a foil illustrating the rule that non-jurisdictional authorities cannot be preferred over binding jurisdictional law.

(D) Talati and Talati LLP v. ACIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 371 / 469 ITR 643 (Guj.)

Same doctrinal placement as Snehdham Trust. Used by DRP to deny relief; rejected by High Court because jurisdictional High Court precedent must prevail.

(E) Vibhavari Bharat Bhatt v. ITO (Intl. Tax) [2025] 178 taxmann.com 193 (Bom.)

This earlier order in the petitioner’s own litigation history is relevant for procedural trajectory: it set aside earlier final order and DRP non-est order and remanded the matter to DRP, directing it to consider Hexaware. The High Court in the present matter used the history to show that the petitioner was legitimately following the procedural route directed by Court and that res judicata arguments were untenable.

Collectively, the case law analysis reveals a simple doctrinal structure: Hexaware is binding and decisive; attempts to dilute it via misreading J.D. Printers or importing Gujarat views are legally impermissible in Bombay jurisdiction.

8. Application of the Judgment (Practical Utility and Administrative Lessons)

This decision has immediate practical application for both taxpayers and tax administration, especially in reassessment cases involving international taxation and DRP route.

(A) For taxpayers: jurisdictional challenge as a “root remedy”

Where a Section 148 notice issued after 29-03-2022 is issued by the JAO, taxpayers within Bombay jurisdiction can invoke this decision (with Hexaware) to argue that the notice is jurisdictionally void. The critical feature is that the defect is not to be treated as curable irregularity. Thus, taxpayers should:

1. Identify the issuing authority of Section 148 (JAO vs FAO).

2. Verify the date (post-29-03-2022).

3. Raise the objection at earliest opportunity (even if the matter is going through DRP), but also preserve right to move writ where DRP refuses to follow binding precedent.

4. Seek quashing of entire chain (148A(b), 148A(d), 148, DRP directions, reassessment order, demand), because once foundation is void, superstructure falls.

The judgment confirms that even if reassessment has proceeded deep into DRP and reassessment order is passed, the High Court may still quash for jurisdictional defect, and will not necessarily relegate the assessee to ITAT where the defect is foundational.

(B) For DRP and tax authorities: binding precedent and institutional compliance

The decision is equally significant as an administrative governance precedent. It establishes that:

1. DRP is bound by jurisdictional High Court decisions; it cannot choose contrary High Court views.

2. If the DRP believes the jurisdictional High Court is wrong, its remedy is not disobedience but allowing the matter to be tested in higher forum through proper litigation channels.

3. Mischaracterising a jurisdictional defect declared by High Court as “procedural irregularity” is not merely an error—it risks judicial censure and future contempt exposure.

Therefore, administrative training and internal instructions must be aligned so that officers do not treat jurisdictional High Court judgments as optional.

(C) For litigation strategy: writ maintainability and “alternate remedy” objection

The decision strengthens the proposition that writ petitions are maintainable where:

• jurisdictional defect is apparent (wrong authority issued notice), and/or

• quasi-judicial authority refuses to follow binding precedent.

Taxpayers can use this case to rebut alternate remedy objections when the issue is jurisdictional rather than factual. Conversely, Revenue must recognise that if authorities disregard binding precedent, they invite writ intervention.

(D) For uniformity in reassessment administration: certainty after faceless transition

The larger policy significance relates to faceless reassessment architecture. The decision reinforces that the shift to faceless issuance of notices is not cosmetic—it is legally mandatory where the scheme says so. If JAO continues issuing notices contrary to the scheme, the outcome will be wholesale quashing, creating avoidable revenue leakage and litigation burden. Therefore, operational compliance is as important as substantive tax merits.

(E) Contempt warning as compliance lever

The High Court’s warning is a practical compliance lever. It signals that continued non-compliance with jurisdictional rulings is not just a litigation risk but a personal accountability risk. This may lead to improved discipline in DRP and AO practices.

Concluding Synthesis

Vibhavari Bharat Bhatt [2026] 183 taxmann.com 454 (Bom.) is not merely another reassessment writ order; it is a jurisdiction and judicial-discipline judgment. Its two central messages are: (i) JAO cannot issue post-29-03-2022 Section 148 notices under Section 151A scheme—only FAO can, and (ii) DRP must obey jurisdictional High Court precedent; it cannot dilute it by importing non-jurisdictional rulings or labelling the defect procedural. The relief granted—quashing the entire reassessment chain—demonstrates that courts will treat such defects as fatal and will intervene even at advanced stages when institutional non-compliance persists.

Above file can also be viewed at:

https://1drv.ms/b/c/0f527a60e6f7d291/IQCdX0FWul4UTotF7WziGLjCAdXYywmqhK3ynfOQbPV2Txk?e=N99bVL

Construction in Favour of Validity

A Doctrinal Study of Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat, Presumption of Constitutionality, and the Impossibility Maxims

I. Introduction: The Judicial Commitment to Preservation

One of the most enduring principles of statutory interpretation is that courts prefer a construction that sustains rather than destroys a statute. This interpretative instinct reflects judicial respect for legislative supremacy and constitutional balance. When a statute is capable of two constructions—one rendering it invalid or unworkable and the other sustaining its operation—the court adopts the latter. This doctrine of preservation finds classical expression in the maxim:

Ut res magis valeat quam pereat — it is better for a thing to have effect than to be void.

Closely allied to this are the doctrines of presumption of constitutionality and the impossibility maxims:

• Lex non cogit ad impossibilia — the law does not compel the impossible.

• Impossibilium nulla obligatio est — there is no obligation to do impossible things.

Together, these principles form the architecture of construction in favour of validity—a doctrine that safeguards legislative intent, constitutional harmony, and practical justice.

II. Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat — Law Should Be Interpreted to Survive

A. Meaning and Historical Origins

The maxim means: “It is better that the thing should have effect rather than be destroyed.” It is a principle of pragmatic interpretation. Courts presume that the legislature intends its enactments to be effective, not futile. If language is ambiguous or susceptible to multiple meanings, interpretation that preserves validity and efficacy is preferred.

This principle reflects judicial humility. Courts do not assume legislative incompetence or irrationality. Instead, they attempt to read statutes in a way that:

• Avoids invalidity,

• Avoids absurdity,

• Avoids redundancy,

• Advances purpose.

B. Application in Indian Constitutional Law

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly invoked this principle to sustain legislation.

1. Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam (1989) 3 SCC 709

The Court observed that if a provision is reasonably capable of two constructions, one of which preserves constitutionality, the court must adopt that construction. The Court emphasised that courts should lean in favour of constitutionality rather than invalidate legislation.

2. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (1957 SCR 930)

The Court applied the principle of severability and interpretative preservation to sustain parts of a statute relating to prize competitions, while excluding unconstitutional aspects.

3. Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962 Supp (2) SCR 769)

The Supreme Court read down Section 124A (sedition) IPC to limit its application to acts involving incitement to violence, thereby preserving constitutionality while preventing misuse.

This is a classic example of ut res magis valeat quam pereat in action.

C. Doctrinal Techniques Supporting the Maxim

The principle operates through several interpretative devices:

1. Reading down — narrowing interpretation to avoid unconstitutionality.

2. Severability — invalidating only unconstitutional portion.

3. Harmonious construction — reconciling conflicting provisions.

4. Contextual interpretation — interpreting words in statutory context.

5. Avoidance of absurdity — rejecting absurd consequences.

D. Comparative Perspective

United Kingdom

Though Parliament is sovereign, UK courts apply a similar preservation principle. In Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. [1940] AC 1014, the House of Lords preferred an interpretation preserving contractual rights rather than extinguishing them without express language.

United States

The U.S. Supreme Court frequently invokes the “constitutional avoidance doctrine,” which parallels ut res magis valeat quam pereat. In Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936), Justice Brandeis laid down that courts should avoid constitutional invalidation if a case can be decided on other grounds.

E. Limits of the Maxim

The doctrine cannot justify rewriting statutes. Courts cannot distort plain meaning to preserve validity. Where language is clear and unconstitutional, courts must strike it down.

Thus, preservation operates only within reasonable interpretative bounds.

III. Presumption of Constitutionality

A. The Doctrine Explained

Presumption of constitutionality is a fundamental interpretative rule. Courts presume that legislation is constitutionally valid unless clearly proven otherwise. The burden of establishing unconstitutionality lies on the challenger.

The doctrine rests on:

• Respect for democratic will,

• Separation of powers,

• Institutional competence.

B. Indian Jurisprudence

1. State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (1997) 2 SCC 453

The Court held that when two views are possible, one upholding constitutionality must be preferred.

2. M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979) 3 SCC 431

The Court reaffirmed that presumption of constitutionality applies strongly unless there is clear conflict with constitutional provisions.

3. Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353

The Court applied proportionality analysis while still recognising presumption in favour of legislation.

C. Rationale

The doctrine assumes:

• Legislature understands needs of the people.

• Law is enacted after deliberation.

• Courts should not lightly invalidate statutes.

D. Application in Tax Law

In taxation matters, courts presume constitutionality unless clear discrimination or arbitrariness is shown. Tax classifications are generally upheld if reasonable nexus exists.

E. Comparative Insight

United States

The U.S. Supreme Court applies rational basis review in economic legislation, strongly presuming constitutionality.

United Kingdom

Though parliamentary sovereignty prevails, courts interpret statutes compatibly with human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 before issuing declarations of incompatibility.

IV. Lex Non Cogit ad Impossibilia — Law Does Not Compel the Impossible

A. Meaning and Scope

The maxim means that the law does not expect compliance with what is impossible. Where compliance becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond control, law excuses performance.

This principle protects fairness and practicality.

B. Indian Case Law

1. Cochin State Power & Light Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1965) 3 SCR 187

The Court recognized that statutory compliance cannot be demanded when impossible due to circumstances beyond control.

2. State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh (1985) 4 SCC 416

The Court observed that procedural compliance cannot be enforced where literal compliance is impossible.

C. Application in Tax Administration

Examples include:

• Failure to file return due to technical portal failure.

• Inability to produce documents lost in natural calamity.

• Compliance deadline falling during force majeure.

Courts interpret procedural requirements flexibly when impossibility is proven.

D. Relationship with Equity

The maxim operates as a bridge between law and equity. It prevents mechanical enforcement that results in injustice.

E. Comparative Law

United Kingdom

The doctrine of impossibility excuses statutory compliance in limited circumstances, especially where compliance is objectively impossible.

United States

The impossibility defense exists in administrative law and compliance contexts, though narrowly applied.

V. Impossibilium Nulla Obligatio Est — No Obligation to Do Impossible Things

A. Conceptual Clarification

Closely allied to the previous maxim, this principle asserts that obligations cease where performance becomes impossible.

In statutory interpretation, it ensures that:

• Compliance duties are read reasonably.

• Mandatory provisions are not applied oppressively.

B. Judicial Application

1. Smt. Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480

The Court held procedural timelines in civil procedure are directory where strict compliance would cause injustice.

2. Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 422

The Court clarified that where statute prescribes a method, it must be followed—but impossibility may excuse performance.

C. Interaction with Mandatory vs Directory Provisions

Impossibility analysis often determines whether a provision is mandatory or directory.

If strict compliance is impossible:

• Provision may be treated as directory.

• Substantial compliance may suffice.

VI. Integrated Doctrinal Synthesis

The four principles operate harmoniously:

Maxim

Function

Ut res magis valeat quam pereat

Preserve statute’s validity

Presumption of constitutionality

Uphold legislative intent

Lex non cogit ad impossibilia

Prevent unfair compulsion

Impossibilium nulla obligatio est

Excuse impossible compliance

Together, they ensure:

• Law survives constitutional scrutiny.

• Citizens are not subjected to impossible burdens.

• Legislature’s will is respected.

• Justice prevails over mechanical literalism.

VII. Construction in Favour of Validity: Philosophical Foundations

These maxims are grounded in:

1. Separation of Powers — Courts defer to legislative wisdom.

2. Rule of Law — Law must be workable.

3. Practical Justice — Law must not compel impossibility.

4. Institutional Balance — Judicial restraint in invalidation.

VIII. Limits and Cautions

Preservation cannot justify:

• Ignoring clear statutory language.

• Overstepping into judicial legislation.

• Diluting constitutional rights.

Similarly, impossibility cannot excuse negligence or self-created inability.

IX. Contemporary Relevance

In modern regulatory regimes—taxation, environmental law, digital compliance—the impossibility maxims gain renewed importance, especially during:

• Pandemic disruptions,

• Systemic technological failures,

• Natural disasters.

Courts increasingly invoke these principles to balance compliance with fairness.

X. Conclusion

Construction in favour of validity reflects a mature judicial philosophy. Rather than destroying statutes at first glance of difficulty, courts seek to preserve them within constitutional limits. Through ut res magis valeat quam pereat and presumption of constitutionality, the judiciary safeguards legislative intent. Through the impossibility maxims, it ensures that law remains humane and practicable.

The synthesis of these doctrines represents a refined balance between:

• Constitutional supremacy,

• Legislative authority,

• Judicial restraint,

• Practical justice.

They demonstrate that interpretation is not merely grammatical analysis but a principled exercise rooted in constitutional morality.

Sections 369 to 374

5.—General

369. Irrespective of the fact that an appeal has been preferred to the High Court or the Supreme Court, tax shall be payable as per the assessment made in the case.

370. The High Court may, on petition made for the execution of the order of the Supreme Court in respect of any costs awarded thereby, transmit the order for execution to any court subordinate to the High Court.

371. If as a result of an appeal under section 356 or 357 or 362, any change is made in the assessment of a body of individuals or an association of persons, or a new assessment is directed in such cases, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, shall pass an order authorising the Assessing Officer either to amend the assessment made on any member of the body or association or to make a fresh assessment on such member.

372. In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal or an application under this Act, the day on which the order complained of was served and, if the assessee was not provided with a copy of the order when the notice of the order was served, the time required to obtain a copy of such order, shall be excluded.

373. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue orders, instructions or directions to other income-tax authorities, fixing such monetary limits as it may deem fit, for the purpose of regulating filing of appeal by any income-tax authority under the provisions of this Chapter.

(2) Where, in pursuance of the orders, instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1), an income-tax authority has not filed any appeal on any issue in the case of an assessee for any tax year, it shall not preclude such authority from filing an appeal on the same issue in the case of—

(a) the same assessee for any other tax year; or

(b) any other assessee for the same or any other tax year.

(3) Where no appeal has been filed by an income-tax authority pursuant to the orders or instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1), it shall not be lawful for an assessee, being a party in any appeal, to contend that the income-tax authority has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by not filing an appeal in any case.

(4) The Appellate Tribunal or Court, hearing such appeal, shall have regard to the orders, instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1) and the circumstances under which such appeal was filed or not filed in respect of any case.

374. For the purposes of this Chapter, “High Court” means,—

(i) for any State, the High Court for that State;

(ii) for the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh;

(iii) for the Union territory of Ladakh, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh;

(iv) for the Union territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the High Court at Calcutta;

(v) for the Union territory of Lakshadweep, the High Court of Kerala;

(vi) for the Union territory of Chandigarh, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana;

(vii) for the Union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, the High Court at Bombay; and

(viii) for the Union territory of Puducherry, the High Court at Madras; and

(ix) for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi.

Analysis

CHAPTER – GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO APPEALS

Analytical Commentary on Sections 369–374, IT Act 2025

I. Section 369 – Tax Payable Despite Appeal

Statutory Text (Essence)

Irrespective of the fact that an appeal has been preferred to the High Court or the Supreme Court, tax shall be payable as per the assessment made in the case.

A. Nature and Legal Effect

Section 369 embodies the principle that appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of demand. Filing of an appeal does not suspend the enforceability of the assessment order.

This provision:

• Reinforces fiscal certainty.

• Protects revenue collection.

• Prevents automatic postponement of tax recovery.

It reflects the doctrine that assessment order remains operative unless stayed.

B. Legal Position Explained

An assessment order creates a statutory liability. Appeal is a continuation of proceedings, but it does not annul the operative character of the demand unless:

• Stay is granted under statutory powers; or

• Interim protection is granted by appellate authority or court.

Thus, tax demand remains legally enforceable.

C. Implications for Taxpayers

1. Filing appeal ≠ suspension of demand.

2. Separate stay application must be filed.

3. Interest under relevant provisions continues.

4. Recovery proceedings may begin if no stay.

Strategically, taxpayers must:

• File stay application immediately.

• Demonstrate prima facie case.

• Show financial hardship.

• Offer partial deposit if required.

Failure to act may lead to coercive recovery.

D. Implications for Tax Officers

1. Demand remains enforceable.

2. However, recovery must follow CBDT instructions on stay and recovery.

3. Officers must exercise discretion judiciously.

4. Coercive recovery during pendency of stay application may be challenged.

Section 369 ensures that revenue is not paralysed by appellate delays.

II. Section 370 – Execution of Supreme Court Costs

Essence

High Court may transmit Supreme Court’s cost order for execution to subordinate court.

A. Function of the Provision

Section 370 ensures enforceability of cost awards granted by the Supreme Court in tax appeals.

It:

• Provides procedural channel.

• Avoids execution vacuum.

• Integrates CPC-style execution mechanism.

B. Practical Significance

If Supreme Court awards costs:

• Either party may seek execution.

• High Court transmits order to subordinate civil court.

• Execution proceeds as decree.

C. Implications

For taxpayers and revenue alike:

• Frivolous litigation carries financial risk.

• Supreme Court cost orders are executable like civil decrees.

• Non-compliance may lead to attachment or recovery proceedings.

III. Section 371 – Consequential Orders in AOP/BOI Cases

Statutory Essence

If appellate authority changes assessment of an Association of Persons (AOP) or Body of Individuals (BOI), corresponding orders must be passed authorising AO to amend or make fresh assessment on members.

A. Legislative Purpose

AOP/BOI taxation involves either:

• Taxation at entity level, or

• Allocation and taxation at member level.

If appellate authority modifies entity assessment, corresponding effect must be given at member level to prevent:

• Double taxation.

• Escapement.

• Inconsistency.

B. Mechanism

Appellate authority must:

1. Authorise AO to amend member’s assessment; or

2. Direct fresh assessment of member.

This ensures structural consistency.

C. Implications for Taxpayers

Members of AOP/BOI:

• May face consequential reassessment.

• Must track entity-level appeals.

• Must ensure credit for taxes paid.

Coordination between entity and members is essential.

D. Implications for Tax Officers

1. Prevent duplication of income.

2. Adjust protective/substantive assessments.

3. Maintain parity between entity and members.

Section 371 avoids systemic distortion in representative taxation.

IV. Section 372 – Computation of Limitation

Essence

In computing limitation for appeal or application:

• Date of service of order is excluded.

• Time required to obtain copy is excluded (if copy not provided).

A. Legal Rationale

This embodies natural justice and fairness.

Limitation should run from:

• Knowledge of order.

• Availability of order copy.

It prevents penalising assessee for administrative delay.

B. Practical Computation

If order served on 10 June:

• 10 June excluded.

• Limitation begins 11 June.

If copy supplied 7 days later:

• Those 7 days excluded.

C. Implications

For taxpayers:

• Maintain proof of service date.

• Retain copy request records.

• Carefully compute limitation.

For revenue:

• Ensure proper service documentation.

• Avoid technical litigation.

V. Section 373 – Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals

This is a highly significant administrative control provision.

A. Sub-section (1): Power of Board

CBDT may fix monetary thresholds regulating filing of appeals.

Purpose:

• Reduce litigation.

• Focus on high-revenue matters.

• Promote litigation discipline.

B. Sub-section (2): No Res Judicata Effect

If appeal not filed due to monetary limit:

• Revenue may file appeal in:

  • Same assessee, different year; or

  • Different assessee, same issue.

Thus, non-filing is not acquiescence.

C. Sub-section (3): Assessee Cannot Claim Acquiescence

Assessee cannot argue:

“Revenue accepted issue in earlier year.”

Monetary threshold non-filing does not create precedent.

D. Sub-section (4): Tribunal/Court Must Consider Circular

Appellate authority must consider:

• CBDT instructions;

• Circumstances of filing/non-filing.

E. Implications for Taxpayers

1. Non-filing of appeal ≠ final acceptance.

2. Cannot plead estoppel against revenue.

3. Each year separate cause of action.

However:

• Consistency doctrine may still apply judicially.

F. Implications for Revenue

1. Must adhere to CBDT circulars.

2. Filing appeal below threshold may render appeal defective.

3. Litigation policy must be disciplined.

Section 373 ensures administrative coherence.

VI. Section 374 – Definition of “High Court”

This section defines jurisdictional High Court for:

• States

• Union Territories

It allocates UTs to specific High Courts.

A. Importance

Determines:

• Territorial appellate jurisdiction.

• Proper filing of Section 363 appeals.

• Avoidance of forum confusion.

B. Key Allocations

• Delhi → Delhi High Court

• Chandigarh → Punjab & Haryana HC

• Lakshadweep → Kerala HC

• Puducherry → Madras HC

• Andaman & Nicobar → Calcutta HC

This mirrors existing judicial structure.

C. Practical Relevance

Wrong High Court filing:

• May lead to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

• Causes limitation issues.

Jurisdiction depends on:

• Location of assessing officer;

• Or as provided by statute.

VII. Integrated Understanding of Sections 369–374

These provisions collectively address:

Section

Core Theme

369

Demand enforceability during appeal

370

Execution of Supreme Court cost orders

371

Consequential adjustments in AOP/BOI cases

372

Limitation computation fairness

373

Litigation management via monetary limits

374

Jurisdictional clarity

They function as systemic stabilizers in appellate structure.

VIII. Broader Doctrinal Themes

1. Fiscal Continuity (Section 369)

Revenue collection must not stall due to appeals.

2. Enforcement Mechanism (Section 370)

Judicial orders must be executable.

3. Structural Consistency (Section 371)

Representative taxation must be harmonized.

4. Procedural Fairness (Section 372)

Limitation rules must be equitable.

5. Litigation Governance (Section 373)

State must regulate its appellate burden.

6. Jurisdictional Certainty (Section 374)

Clear territorial demarcation essential.

IX. Practical Litigation Strategy Notes

For Taxpayers

• Always file stay application with appeal.

• Calculate limitation conservatively.

• Do not rely on revenue’s past non-appeal.

• Monitor AOP assessments if member.

• Check High Court jurisdiction carefully.

For Revenue Officers

• Follow CBDT appeal thresholds strictly.

• Exercise recovery discretion fairly.

• Pass consequential orders in AOP cases promptly.

• Ensure proper service records.

• Respect judicial discipline.

X. Conclusion

Sections 369–374 may appear procedural, but they are structurally critical. They ensure:

• Continuity of tax collection,

• Administrative coherence,

• Litigation discipline,

• Jurisdictional clarity,

• Fair limitation computation,

• Enforcement of judicial costs.

These provisions demonstrate that appellate law is not merely about legal correctness, but also about systemic efficiency, fairness, and fiscal stability.

Sapphire Foods India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
[2026] 183 taxmann.com 506 (Delhi High Court, 16-02-2026)

I. Main Ratio (Catch Note)

The Delhi High Court held that where, during original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer (AO) had specifically called for and obtained full details and agreements relating to certain expenditure, reopening of assessment under sections 147/148 based solely on audit objections regarding the very same disclosed material amounts to an impermissible review or change of opinion. An audit objection, though treated as “information” under Explanation 1(ii) to section 148, cannot enlarge the AO’s power into a power of review when the issue was already examined. Further, in a case where assessment under section 143(3) was completed and the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts, notice issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is barred by limitation under the first proviso to section 149 (as applicable). Consequently, the notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) were quashed.

II. Facts of the Case

The petitioner company filed its return for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 declaring a loss of approximately ₹10.24 crores. The case was selected for scrutiny and an assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 09-12-2018. During scrutiny proceedings, the AO specifically sought detailed information regarding salary/remuneration and legal/professional expenses. The assessee furnished:

• Employment Agreement of its Managing Director (MD) relating to payment of ₹8.90 crores (described as joining bonus/managerial remuneration), and

• Consulting Agreement of a shareholder for ₹90.81 lakhs.

The AO thus had all relevant agreements and documents on record, although the assessment order did not record specific findings on these particular expenses.

Subsequently, on 22-03-2023, the AO issued a notice under section 148A(b) enclosing audit objections raised by the local Audit Party. Two objections were raised:

1. Incorrect allowance of share premium of ₹5.43 crores;

2. Incorrect allowance of expenses aggregating ₹9.81 crores (₹8.90 crores to MD and ₹90.81 lakhs to shareholder), allegedly not incurred for business purposes.

After considering the assessee’s reply, the AO dropped the share premium objection but proceeded on the second objection. An order under section 148A(d) was passed, and notice under section 148 was issued on 31-03-2023.

The notice was issued beyond four years from the end of AY 2016-17. The assessee challenged the reopening by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

III. Decision of the Assessing Officer and Reasons

The AO justified reopening on the basis of audit objections, invoking Explanation 1(ii) to section 148, which includes “any audit objection” as information suggesting escapement of income.

The AO’s reasoning, as reflected in the record, was:

• The assessee’s turnover in the first year was negligible (₹1.75 lakhs), yet it paid ₹8.90 crores to the MD and ₹90.81 lakhs to a shareholder.

• These expenses constituted approximately 93% of total expenses.

• There was “no justification available in the file” for payment of such large amounts in the first year.

• The payments were allegedly not incurred wholly and exclusively for business under section 37.

• The bonus/commission may have been payable as profit or dividend, thus attracting section 36(1)(ii) concerns.

• Escaped income exceeded the monetary threshold, and was represented in the form of expenditure, attracting section 149(1)(b).

Thus, according to the AO, the audit objection constituted tangible material enabling reopening.

IV. Analysis of Facts and Decision of the CIT(A)

In this case, the CIT(A) stage related to the original assessment and not the reopening. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the assessee’s appeal in respect of share premium under section 56(2)(viib), deleting certain additions made by the AO. However, the expenditure issue (₹9.81 crores) had not been disturbed adversely at that stage, and the original scrutiny had accepted the claim.

The significance of the CIT(A) stage in the High Court’s reasoning lies in the fact that the original assessment order was a completed scrutiny assessment, and the issues had travelled in appellate hierarchy. The reopening, therefore, was not in a vacuum but sought to disturb a concluded scrutiny order which had already undergone appellate examination on other aspects.

Thus, the CIT(A)’s earlier involvement strengthened the argument that the assessment was not perfunctory but was a detailed scrutiny assessment.

V. Decision and Reasoning of the Tribunal

There was no Tribunal decision in the reassessment proceedings because the matter was directly challenged before the High Court under Article 226 at the stage of notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d). However, the background included a pending appeal before the ITAT in respect of share premium.

The High Court noted that where reassessment is barred by jurisdictional infirmity (limitation/change of opinion), writ remedy is maintainable.

VI. Analysis of Facts and Decision of the High Court

The High Court’s reasoning proceeded in structured stages:

A. Maintainability of Writ

The Court rejected the Revenue’s objection that the writ petition was premature. Where reassessment notice is alleged to be barred by limitation or without jurisdiction, the Court can exercise writ jurisdiction.

B. Change of Opinion Doctrine

The core issue was whether reopening on the basis of audit objection, in circumstances where the AO had already examined the issue during scrutiny, amounted to a change of opinion.

The Court found:

• The AO had specifically called for details of remuneration and professional expenses.

• The assessee furnished agreements and documents.

• Therefore, the AO was “very much aware” of the transactions.

• Even though no specific finding was recorded, the issue must be deemed to have been considered.

The Court drew a critical distinction:

1. Case where assessee failed to provide material, later flagged by audit – reopening may be permissible.

2. Case where all material was disclosed and examined, but AO did not record reasons – reopening amounts to review.

The present case fell in the second category.

The Court held that reopening on the same material to reach a different conclusion amounts to impermissible review, contrary to settled law.

C. Role of Audit Objection

Although Explanation 1(ii) to section 148 includes audit objection as “information,” the Court clarified:

• Audit objection does not automatically mandate reopening.

• AO must independently apply mind.

• Audit objection cannot convert reassessment power into review power.

The Court relied upon principles laid down in Kelvinator of India Ltd. and Financial Software & Systems (P.) Ltd.

D. Limitation under Section 149

The Court further held:

• Since assessment under section 143(3) was completed,

• And assessee had fully and truly disclosed material facts,

• The extended period of six years was not available.

• Notice dated 31-03-2023 was beyond four years from end of AY 2016-17.

• Hence barred by limitation under first proviso to section 149 (as applicable).

Thus, on both counts—change of opinion and limitation—the notice was invalid.

E. Result

The High Court quashed:

• Order under section 148A(d),

• Notice under section 148,

• All consequential proceedings.

The judgment was in favour of the assessee.

VII. Summary Analysis of Case Laws Referred

The Court referred to several precedents. The doctrinal impact is summarized below:

1. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)

Reopening requires tangible material. Reassessment cannot be a review. “Change of opinion” doctrine prevents arbitrary reopening.

Applied: The present case lacked new tangible material.

2. Deputy/Asstt. CIT v. Financial Software & Systems (P.) Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 370 (SC)

Where specific queries were raised and answered during scrutiny, reopening on same issue is impermissible.

Applied directly.

3. CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC)

Audit objection pointing out factual error may justify reopening.

Distinguished: In that case, AO was unaware of expired approval. Here, AO had full knowledge.

4. Springer Healthcare Ltd. (Delhi HC)

Audit objection does not expand power of reassessment into review.

Followed.

5. S.A. Builders Ltd. (SC)

Commercial expediency test under section 37.

Cited to support business expenditure justification.

VIII. Application of the Judgment

A. For Taxpayers

1. Full disclosure during scrutiny is a strong shield against reopening.

2. If AO raises specific queries and assessee responds, reopening on same issue is likely invalid.

3. Audit objection alone is insufficient if no fresh material exists.

4. Limitation defence under section 149 must be carefully examined.

5. Writ remedy is maintainable where jurisdictional defect exists.

B. For Tax Officers

1. Audit objections are not mechanical triggers for reopening.

2. Independent application of mind is mandatory.

3. Distinguish between:

   • Non-disclosure cases (reopening valid), and

   • Reappraisal cases (review impermissible).

4. Limitation provisions must be strictly adhered to.

5. Recording detailed reasoning in assessment orders reduces litigation risk.

C. Doctrinal Significance

The judgment reinforces:

• Sanctity of completed scrutiny assessments.

• Constitutional discipline in exercise of reassessment power.

• Protection against revenue audit-driven review.

• Continuing vitality of change of opinion doctrine even after 2021 amendments.

Concluding Observations

is a reaffirmation of the constitutional boundaries of reassessment power. The High Court clarified that Explanation 1(ii) to section 148 does not dilute the doctrine against review. Audit objection is “information,” but not a mandate to reopen where scrutiny already occurred.

The judgment harmonizes:

• Section 147/148 scheme,

• Explanation 1(ii),

• Section 149 limitation,

• Kelvinator doctrine,

• Post-2021 reassessment safeguards under section 148A.

It serves as a significant precedent safeguarding taxpayers against reassessment founded merely on audit reinterpretation of disclosed facts.

Cases uploaded in January 2026

Jan 26-181

1 Share Premium Addition Under Section 56(2)(viib) Not Sustainable After Rectification and for Non-Resident Investors

Hero Fincorp Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), New Delhi
[2026] 1 TMI 1191 (ITAT Delhi – Larger Bench), decided on 16 January 2026

This Larger Bench decision addressed whether the NFAC could revive an addition under section 56(2)(viib) after the Assessing Officer had deleted it by a rectification order under section 154. The Tribunal held that once rectification is carried out, the rectification order merges with the original assessment, extinguishing the addition, and the appellate authority cannot adjudicate an issue that has become academic. Independently, on merits, the Tribunal held that section 56(2)(viib) does not apply where shares are issued to non-resident investors, and the Revenue failed to establish that such investors had a place of effective management in India. Accordingly, the Tribunal ruled that the NFAC exceeded its jurisdiction in disregarding the rectification order and restored the assessee’s position, deleting the addition both on jurisdictional and substantive grounds.

Jan 26-182

2. Reopening Beyond Three Years Invalid Without Approval of Specified Authority

Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi & Ors. v. Mangla Gupta [2026] 1 TMI 1428 (Supreme Court), order dated 27 January 2026

The Revenue challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision quashing reassessment notices issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year for want of approval from the specified authority under section 151(ii). The High Court had held that sanction by the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement, and approval by any other authority renders the notice invalid. The Supreme Court, after condoning delay, declined to interfere with the High Court’s ruling, finding no legal infirmity in the conclusion that absence of approval from the correct authority vitiates the reassessment proceedings. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly dismissed, thereby affirming that strict compliance with section 151 is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.

Jan 26-183

3. Bogus LTCG Addition on Penny Stock Unsustainable in Absence of Adverse SEBI Finding Against Assessee

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai v. Sunita Chaudhary [2026] 1 TMI 1119 (ITAT Mumbai), decided on 19 January 2026

The Revenue appealed against deletion of additions made by treating the assessee’s long-term capital gains (LTCG) from sale of shares of First Financial Services Ltd. as bogus penny-stock gains under sections 68 and 69C. The reassessment was triggered solely on the basis of an investigation report alleging a general racket of accommodation entries in penny stocks. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had purchased and sold shares through a recognised stock exchange, with delivery through a demat account and transactions routed via a registered broker. Crucially, in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year, the Tribunal had already held identical transactions in the same scrip to be genuine, relying on SEBI’s investigation which had revoked the interim restraint order and did not implicate the assessee as a fraudulent player. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to bring any new incriminating material to justify a different conclusion. Mere price rise or general allegations against a scrip, without specific evidence against the assessee, were held insufficient to sustain additions. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of LTCG and alleged commission, and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.

Jan 26-184

4. Section 68 Addition Not Sustainable Where Sale of Investments Accepted in Earlier Years

ITO, Ward-3(1), Kolkata v. Sapphire Global Finance (P) Ltd. [2026] 1 TMI 1199 (ITAT Kolkata), decided on 20 January 2026

The Revenue challenged deletion of additions made under section 68 in respect of amounts received by the assessee on sale of investments. The Assessing Officer treated the receipts as unexplained cash credits, alleging that the assessee was an accommodation entry provider. The Tribunal noted that the shares sold during the relevant years had been acquired in earlier years and were duly reflected as investments in the balance sheet, which had been accepted in scrutiny assessments under section 143(3). It was held that once the existence and genuineness of investments had been accepted by the Department in earlier years, their sale proceeds could not be doubted in a subsequent year without fresh adverse material. The Tribunal further observed that the transactions were conducted through banking channels, the identity and creditworthiness of the counterparties were not disputed, and no defect was pointed out in the books of account. Relying on the principle of consistency and the Calcutta High Court decision in Tulsyan and Sons (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that section 68 had been wrongly invoked. The Revenue’s appeals for all the years were dismissed.

Jan 26-185

5. ARC Securitisation Trust Held Revocable; Income Taxable in Hands of Investors, Not Trust

ITO-22(1)(6), Mumbai v. ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio – 001-A Trust [2026] 1 TMI 1415 (ITAT Mumbai), decided on 22 January 2026

The Revenue sought to tax the income of a securitisation trust constituted by ARCIL as an Association of Persons (AOP), denying exemption claimed under sections 61 to 63. The Tribunal examined the trust deed and held that the trust was clearly revocable, as Security Receipt holders had a right to revoke their contributions collectively, resulting in re-transfer of assets and dissolution of the trust, thereby satisfying both limbs of section 63(a). The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s contention that revocation must be unilateral or unconditional, holding that conditional or collective revocation does not negate revocability. It further held that the trust could not be treated as an AOP, as it was a statutorily mandated vehicle under the SARFAESI Act, with no common volition or joint management among investors. Beneficiaries were identifiable and their shares determinate. Once the trust was held revocable, section 164 had no application. Upholding the CIT(A)’s order, the Tribunal held that the income was taxable only in the hands of the Security Receipt holders and not in the hands of the trust, and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.

Jan 26-186

6. Section 153C Proceedings Invalid Where Limitation Computed from Date of Receipt of Seized Digital Material

Jaideep Halwasiya v. ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata [2026] 1 TMI 1201 (ITAT Kolkata), decided on 20 January 2026

The assessee challenged the validity of proceedings initiated under section 153C on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the seized material relied upon consisted of digital WhatsApp chats obtained during a search on a third party, which were transmitted by the Assessing Officer of the searched person to the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 26.09.2022. Applying section 153C(3), the Tribunal held that the relevant date for computing limitation was the date on which such material was handed over to the Assessing Officer of the “other person,” and not the original date of search. Since the notice under section 153C was issued on 13.12.2022 and the assessment completed thereafter, the proceedings were held to be barred by limitation. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Shalimar Town Planners and Jasjit Singh, the Tribunal quashed the notice and the consequential assessment as void ab initio. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Jan 26-187

7. Gold Purchases for Business Promotion Not Bogus When Seller’s Transactions Accepted and Dividend Exemption Cannot Be Denied by Computation Adjustment

Jamnadas Virji Shares & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT-4(3)(1), Mumbai [2026] 1 TMI 1479 (ITAT Mumbai), decided on 22 January 2026

The assessee, a SEBI-registered stock broker, challenged disallowance of expenditure incurred on purchase of gold coins treated as bogus under section 37(1), based on third-party survey statements. The Tribunal held that once the very same transactions had been examined and accepted as genuine in the hands of the seller, it was impermissible to treat them as bogus in the hands of the buyer without independent evidence. The assessee had established that the gold coins were purchased through banking channels and distributed immediately for business promotion and staff welfare, and absence of a stock register was irrelevant as the assessee was not a dealer in gold. The Tribunal also deleted an addition of dividend income allegedly made during reassessment, holding that the income was exempt under section 10(34) and could not be taxed merely through a computation sheet without any finding in the assessment order. Directions were issued to grant credit for advance tax and TDS. All appeals of the assessee were allowed.

Jan 26-188

8. Assessment on a Non-Existent Amalgamating Company Held Void Ab Initio

Kadimi Special Steels Pvt. Ltd. (amalgamated with Kadimi Tool Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.) v. ACIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi [2026] 1 TMI 1323 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 23 January 2026

The assessee challenged final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with sections 144C and 144B for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 on the ground that the orders were framed in the name of a company which had ceased to exist pursuant to an NCLT-approved scheme of amalgamation. Despite the assessee having duly intimated the Assessing Officer about the merger and filing supporting documents, the final assessment order continued to be passed in the name of the erstwhile amalgamating company. The Tribunal held that once an entity ceases to exist in the eyes of law, any assessment framed in its name is a nullity. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the ITAT observed that this defect is not procedural but jurisdictional and cannot be cured under section 292B. Since the foundation of the assessment itself was invalid, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders in limine without going into the merits of transfer pricing adjustments. The assessee’s appeal was allowed on this legal ground alone.

Jan 26-189

9. Reopening Based on Anti-Corruption Bureau Report Quashed for Borrowed Satisfaction

Krunalkumar Virambhai Desai v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar [2026] 1 TMI 1192 (ITAT Ahmedabad), decided on 20 January 2026

The assessee’s assessment for AY 2014-15 was reopened under section 147 solely on the basis of information received from the Anti-Corruption Bureau regarding a disproportionate assets case registered against a relative of the assessee. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions on account of cash deposits and alleged cash payments for purchase of land, without conducting any independent enquiry or verifying whether such assets actually belonged to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded revealed complete non-application of mind, as the Assessing Officer merely reproduced the ACB information without examining its relevance to the assessee or the year under consideration. No effort was made to verify the nature of alleged disproportionate assets or to establish escapement of income in the assessee’s hands. Following its own earlier decision in a connected family member’s case, the ITAT held that the reopening was based on borrowed belief and lacked the statutory requirement of “reason to believe.” Consequently, the reassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B was quashed as invalid, and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.

Jan 26-190

10. Penalty Under Section 270A Unsustainable When Income Declared in Return and Accepted

Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai [2026] 1 TMI 1258 (ITAT Mumbai), decided on 21 January 2026

The issue before the Tribunal was whether penalty under section 270A for alleged misreporting of income could be levied when additional income disclosed during survey was duly incorporated in the return of income and accepted in assessment. The assessee, engaged in interior decoration works, had offered certain cash receipts during survey under section 133A and subsequently included the same in its return filed within the statutory time. The assessment was completed without any variation between returned and assessed income. The Tribunal held that the concept of “under-reported income” presupposes failure to report income that was legally required to be reported. When the accounting year had not concluded at the time of survey and the income was properly declared in the return and accepted, the foundational requirement of under-reporting itself was absent. The Tribunal further noted that the penalty notice was vague and did not clearly specify whether it was for under-reporting or misreporting under section 270A(9). In the absence of statutory conditions for misreporting and relying on binding Gujarat High Court precedent, the ITAT deleted the penalty in entirety and allowed the assessee’s appeal.

Jan 26-191

11. Transfer of Jurisdiction by Non-Jurisdictional PCIT Held Void; Entire Assessment Quashed

Kunshan Q Tech Microelectronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi [2026] 1 TMI 1197 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 20 January 2026

The assessee challenged the validity of an assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 144C on the ground that jurisdiction was assumed pursuant to an invalid transfer order under section 127. The Tribunal found that the order transferring jurisdiction was passed by a Principal Commissioner who had no inherent jurisdiction over the assessee, a corporate entity, either under section 124 or under the CBDT notifications issued under section 120. The transfer order was not even communicated to the assessee until directed by the Tribunal during appellate proceedings. The ITAT held that section 124(3) regarding waiver of jurisdictional objections does not apply where the authority passing the order itself lacks inherent jurisdiction. Applying the principle sublato fundamento cadit opus, the Tribunal held that once the jurisdiction-conferring order under section 127 was void ab initio, all consequential proceedings, including the draft and final assessment orders, were also nullities. Accordingly, the entire assessment was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.

Jan 26-192

12. Final Assessment Orders Quashed as Time-Barred Under Section 144C Read with Section 153

Li & Fung (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Delhi [2026] 1 TMI 1477 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 21 January 2026

The assessee challenged the validity of final assessment orders for AYs 2018-19 and 2020-21 on the ground that they were barred by limitation under section 144C(13) read with section 153. The Revenue objected to adjudication, arguing that the issue was pending before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Shelf Drilling. The Tribunal rejected this objection, holding that a stay of the operative portion of a judgment does not obliterate its ratio decidendi, and that reliance on the Madras High Court decision in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. was still permissible. On merits, the ITAT held that sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and overlapping, and limitation for passing a final assessment order must be computed by reading both provisions together. On examining the undisputed chronology, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the permissible statutory time limit. Consequently, the assessments were held to be barred by limitation and were quashed without examining the merits of transfer pricing adjustments. The appeals were allowed.

Jan 26-193

13. Transfer Pricing Adjustment Remanded for Fresh Examination of Comparables and Risk Adjustment

Lockheed Martin India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi [2026] 1 TMI 1376 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 23 January 2026

The assessee, engaged in providing marketing and support services to its associated enterprise on a cost-plus basis, challenged a transfer pricing adjustment arising from selection and rejection of comparables and denial of risk and working capital adjustments. The Tribunal examined objections relating to inclusion of certain comparables such as Inhouse Production Ltd., India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (ARMS segment), Global Procurement Consultants Ltd., and Quadrant Communication Ltd. It held that Global Procurement Consultants Ltd. was to be excluded following earlier coordinate bench rulings, while inclusion of Inhouse Production Ltd. and Quadrant Communication Ltd. required fresh examination after considering segmental data and business profile. The Tribunal further found that denial of risk adjustment was inconsistent with directions issued in earlier assessment years and remanded the issue to the TPO, directing the assessee to demonstrate differential risk vis-à-vis comparables. It also directed that working capital adjustment as ordered by the DRP must be granted and that bank charges and provision for doubtful debts should be treated as operating expenses while computing margins. An application by the Revenue under Rule 27 seeking enhancement on secondment of employees was rejected as misconceived. The matter was thus partly allowed for statistical purposes by way of remand.

Jan 26-194

14. Final Assessment Orders Quashed as Time-Barred Under Section 144C Read With Section 153

Lufthansa Technik Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT & Ors. [2026] 1 TMI 1375 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 23 January 2026

The assessee challenged the validity of final assessment orders for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 on the ground that they were barred by limitation under section 144C(13) read with section 153. The Revenue contended that section 144C constituted a self-contained code and that limitation should be computed only with reference to timelines under that provision, especially in view of pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal rejected this argument, relying on the Madras High Court decision in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., holding that sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and overlapping, and limitation must be computed by reading both provisions together. On examination of undisputed dates, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the permissible statutory period. It further held that mere pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court does not dilute the binding nature of a High Court judgment whose operation has not been stayed. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned assessment orders were without jurisdiction and quashed them in entirety, allowing the assessee’s appeals on the legal issue alone.

Jan 26-195

15. Advances and Finished Goods Cannot Be Treated as Sales Under Project Completion Method

M/s. M.S. Builders v. ITO, Ward-1(1), Uttar Pradesh [2026] 1 TMI 1250 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 16 January 2026

The assessee, engaged in real estate development, followed the project completion method for revenue recognition and declared advances received from customers as liabilities and unsold units as finished goods. The Assessing Officer treated the finished goods and advances as sales for the year and estimated profit thereon, resulting in substantial addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently followed the project completion method and had offered the corresponding sales and profits to tax in subsequent assessment years, which were accepted by the Revenue. It held that taxing the same amounts again in the year under appeal would result in impermissible double taxation. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Bilahari Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Excel Industries Ltd., and the Delhi High Court ruling in Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that where income has been offered and taxed in subsequent years and there is no loss to the Revenue, no addition is warranted merely on timing differences. The action of the Assessing Officer in treating work-in-progress and advances as sales was held to be contrary to accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, the entire addition was deleted and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.

Jan 26-196

16. Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) Not Leviable on Estimated Disallowance of Bogus Purchases

M/s. Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-5, Pune [2026] 1 TMI 1261 (ITAT Pune), decided on 21 January 2026

The assessee challenged levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) following disallowance of a portion of alleged bogus purchases, which had ultimately been restricted to a percentage on estimation basis pursuant to appellate directions. The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition was not based on detection of concealed income but on estimation of profit element embedded in disputed purchases. Relying on the Bombay High Court judgment in Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that penalty for concealment cannot be sustained where the underlying addition is purely estimated and no specific concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is established. It further observed that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts and that mere acceptance of an estimated disallowance does not automatically attract penalty. Considering the totality of facts and the settled legal position that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, the Tribunal directed deletion of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). All appeals of the assessee were allowed.

Jan 26-197

17. Domestic Business Transfer Between Resident AEs Not an International or Deemed International Transaction

Maersk Tankers India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(1), Mumbai [2026] 1 TMI 1203 (ITAT Mumbai), decided on 20 January 2026

The assessee, an Indian resident company, transferred its India technical management support services business by way of slump sale to another Indian resident group company. The Transfer Pricing Officer treated the transaction as a deemed international transaction under section 92B(2) and proposed a substantial transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal held that section 92B(2) applies only where a transaction is entered into with a person other than an associated enterprise pursuant to a prior arrangement with a non-resident AE. Since the impugned transaction was directly between two resident associated enterprises, the statutory gateway of section 92B(2) was not crossed. The Tribunal rejected the DRP’s reliance on “substance over form” to treat the domestic transferee as a third party, holding that such an approach cannot override clear statutory language. Following the coordinate bench decision in Reach Data Services India Pvt. Ltd., it held that the transaction could neither be treated as an international transaction nor a deemed international transaction. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.

Jan 26-198

18. Entire Bogus Purchase Disallowance Under Section 69C Not Sustainable Solely on Director’s Statement; Profit Element Can Be Estimated

Maharashtra Corporation Limited v. ITO, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai [2026] 1 TMI 1120 (ITAT Mumbai), decided on 19 January 2026

The assessee, engaged in trading of textile goods, challenged an addition of over ₹10.22 crore made under section 69C on account of alleged bogus purchases from Indo Count Industries Ltd., based entirely on a statement of its Director recorded under section 131 by another authority, wherein it was stated that goods were sold “in transit” without physical delivery. The Assessing Officer treated this as an admission of accommodation entries and disallowed the entire purchase amount, which was confirmed by the NFAC relying on N.K. Industries and Kanak Impex. The Tribunal held that a statement must be read as a whole and that sale of goods in transit is a recognised commercial practice in the textile trade. In the absence of any independent enquiry, corroborative evidence, or material showing fictitious purchases, the entire disallowance under section 69C was not sustainable. At the same time, the Tribunal observed that such transactions involved a degree of opacity and could reasonably indicate suppression of profit. Distinguishing the facts from cases warranting 100% disallowance, the Tribunal held that the matter lay between complete deletion and full disallowance. Accordingly, it restricted the addition to 6% of the impugned purchases to account for the embedded profit element, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal.

Jan 26-199

19. Reassessment Beyond Three Years Invalid for Want of Sanction by Proper Authority Under Section 151(ii)

Mamraj Aggarwal v. ITO, Ward-47(1), Delhi [2026] 1 TMI 1253 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 21 January 2026

The assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 on the ground that mandatory approval under section 151 was not obtained from the competent authority. The notice under section 148A(b) and consequential reassessment were issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, but sanction was granted only by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the higher authority mandated under section 151(ii), namely the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent. The Tribunal noted that under the new reassessment regime, Parliament has deliberately prescribed a higher-level sanctioning authority after three years as a jurisdictional safeguard against mechanical reopening. Relying on the Delhi High Court decision in Communist Party of India (Marxist) and coordinate bench rulings following Rajeev Bansal (SC), the Tribunal held that sanction by an incompetent authority goes to the root of jurisdiction and renders the entire reassessment void ab initio. Since the foundational jurisdictional requirement itself was not satisfied, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings without examining the merits of additions made under section 69C. The assessee’s appeal was allowed on this legal ground alone.

Jan 26-200

20. Deduction Under Sections 54B and 54F Not Available; Correct Capital Gains to Be Recomputed on Sale of Flats

Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi v. ITO, Ward-7(4), Pune [2026] 1 TMI 1478 (ITAT Pune), decided on 21 January 2026

The assessee, an individual landowner, entered into a registered joint venture agreement in January 2011, transferring agricultural land to a developer in exchange for 34% of the constructed area, and subsequently converted the land into stock-in-trade. In AY 2017-18, on sale of flats received under the JV, the assessee claimed deduction under section 54B and alternatively sought deduction under section 54F. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claims, noting that the transfer had occurred in 2011 and that purchase of agricultural land in 2017 was beyond the statutory two-year period, besides the fact that the assessee had already claimed section 54B deduction in earlier years on the same land. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction either under section 54B or section 54F, as statutory conditions were clearly not met. However, it accepted the legal position that an assessee is entitled to raise an additional or alternative claim before appellate authorities. On facts, it held that capital gains did not arise in AY 2011-12 as the land was agricultural, but when flats were sold in AY 2017-18, capital gains had to be computed by deducting the market value of flats (determined when possession was handed over) as cost of acquisition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation of correct capital gains, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

Section 367 and 368

4.—Appeals to Supreme Court

367. An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment of the High Court delivered on an appeal made to High Court in respect of an order passed under section 363 in any case which the High Court certifies to be fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.

368. (1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to appeals to the Supreme Court shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under section 367 as they apply in the case of appeals from decrees of a High Court.

(2) The costs of the appeal shall be at the discretion of the Supreme Court.

(3) Where the judgment of the High Court is varied or reversed in the appeal, effect shall be given to the order of the Supreme Court in the manner provided in section 365(10) in the case of a judgment of the High Court

Appeals to the Supreme Court under the Income-tax Act, 2025

Analytical Commentary on Sections 367 and 368

I. Legislative Context and Structural Position

Sections 367 and 368 form part of the appellate architecture under the Income-tax Act, 2025. They govern the final tier of statutory appeal—namely, appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of the High Court delivered under Section 363.

To understand their significance, one must appreciate the hierarchy:

1. Assessment Order →

2. First Appeal (CIT(A) / relevant authority) →

3. Tribunal →

4. High Court (Section 363 – appeal on substantial question of law) →

5. Supreme Court (Section 367 – certified appeal)

Thus, Section 367 does not create an ordinary right of appeal. It creates a restricted, certificate-based appeal mechanism.

II. Section 367 – Appeal to the Supreme Court

Statutory Text (Essence)

An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment of the High Court delivered on an appeal made to the High Court under Section 363, in any case which the High Court certifies to be fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.

A. Nature of the Appeal

Section 367 establishes that:

• Appeal lies only from a High Court judgment rendered under Section 363.

• It is not automatic.

• It requires High Court certification that the case is fit for appeal.

This is analogous to Article 133 of the Constitution, where civil appeals require certification that a substantial question of law of general importance is involved.

Thus, Section 367 does not create a broad right but a filtered, controlled appellate route.

B. Conditions for Appeal

Three essential conditions must be satisfied:

1. There must be a judgment of the High Court.

2. That judgment must arise from an appeal under Section 363.

3. The High Court must certify the case as fit for appeal.

The certification requirement ensures that only cases involving:

• Substantial questions of law of general importance, or

• Issues requiring authoritative pronouncement

reach the Supreme Court under this statutory route.

C. Implications for Taxpayers

For taxpayers, Section 367 provides:

• A structured statutory pathway to challenge adverse High Court rulings.

• An opportunity to seek final authoritative interpretation of tax law.

• A mechanism to resolve conflicting High Court decisions.

However, taxpayers must recognize:

• Certification is discretionary.

• Not every adverse judgment qualifies.

• The issue must transcend individual grievance and raise broader legal significance.

Strategically, taxpayers must frame certification applications focusing on:

• Conflict in High Court rulings.

• Constitutional questions.

• Interpretation affecting large classes of taxpayers.

• Issues of recurring importance.

D. Implications for Tax Officers

For Revenue authorities, Section 367:

• Enables appeal against adverse High Court rulings affecting revenue.

• Provides opportunity to resolve conflicting High Court interpretations.

• Allows authoritative clarification of tax provisions.

Revenue must carefully evaluate:

• Revenue impact.

• Legal sustainability.

• Policy implications.

• Whether matter involves general public importance.

Frivolous appeals may invite adverse costs (see Section 368(2)).

III. Relationship with Constitutional Remedies

Section 367 operates independently of:

• Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Even where High Court declines certification, parties may approach the Supreme Court via SLP. However:

• Section 367 is statutory appeal (as of right upon certification).

• Article 136 is discretionary constitutional remedy.

Thus, Section 367 provides structured appellate discipline, whereas SLP is extraordinary.

IV. Section 368 – Procedural Framework

Section 368 governs procedural aspects of appeals under Section 367.

A. Section 368(1): Application of CPC Provisions

Textual Effect

The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to appeals to the Supreme Court shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals under Section 367.

1. Meaning of “So far as may be”

The phrase implies:

• Adaptation of civil appellate procedure.

• Flexibility in procedural application.

• Avoidance of mechanical transplantation.

Thus, procedural matters such as:

• Filing format,

• Limitation,

• Security for costs,

• Record transmission,

• Stay applications,

shall be governed by CPC principles applicable to Supreme Court appeals.

2. Implications for Taxpayers

Taxpayers must ensure:

• Strict compliance with procedural requirements.

• Filing within limitation period.

• Proper drafting of grounds confined to certified questions.

• Avoidance of introduction of new factual issues.

Since appeal lies on substantial questions of law, factual disputes cannot ordinarily be reopened.

3. Implications for Revenue Officers

Revenue officers must:

• Ensure certified question is clearly articulated.

• Avoid expansion beyond certified scope.

• Maintain record integrity.

• Seek stay where tax recovery is affected.

Failure to comply procedurally may render appeal defective.

B. Section 368(2): Costs at Discretion of Supreme Court

This provision states:

The costs of the appeal shall be at the discretion of the Supreme Court.

1. Significance

This provision serves as:

• A deterrent against frivolous litigation.

• A tool for compensatory justice.

• A mechanism to penalize abuse of appellate process.

2. For Taxpayers

If a taxpayer pursues an unmeritorious appeal:

• The Supreme Court may impose costs.

• Strategic litigation planning is essential.

Conversely, if Revenue files unwarranted appeal:

• Costs may be awarded in favour of taxpayer.

3. For Revenue

Revenue must avoid:

• Appeals merely for keeping issue alive.

• Appeals without substantial legal foundation.

• Appeals contrary to binding precedent.

Cost exposure acts as accountability mechanism.

C. Section 368(3): Giving Effect to Supreme Court Judgment

This provision states:

Where the High Court judgment is varied or reversed, effect shall be given to the order of the Supreme Court in the manner provided in Section 365(10) (which governs effect-giving mechanism for High Court judgments).

1. Functional Role

This provision ensures:

• Administrative implementation.

• Rectification of assessment orders.

• Refunds or demand adjustments.

• Interest consequences.

It avoids procedural vacuum.

2. Implications for Taxpayers

If Supreme Court reverses High Court:

• Assessment may be annulled.

• Refund with statutory interest may arise.

• Penalties may collapse.

• Recovery actions must be reversed.

Timely follow-up with jurisdictional officer is crucial.

3. Implications for Revenue Officers

Officers must:

• Promptly give effect to Supreme Court judgment.

• Issue rectification orders.

• Process refunds.

• Update demand records.

• Avoid contempt exposure.

Delay in implementation may attract judicial displeasure.

V. Nature of Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction Under Section 367

Appeal under Section 367:

• Is confined to substantial question of law.

• Does not ordinarily re-evaluate evidence.

• Has precedential authority across India.

Supreme Court’s interpretation binds:

• All High Courts.

• All Tribunals.

• All assessing authorities.

Thus, Section 367 plays crucial role in tax jurisprudence development.

VI. Strategic Considerations

A. For Taxpayers

1. Focus on substantial legal issue.

2. Avoid factual re-argument.

3. Highlight national revenue impact.

4. Emphasize conflicting High Court views.

5. Seek interim protection if recovery threatened.

B. For Revenue

1. Assess policy impact before appeal.

2. Avoid repetitive litigation.

3. Seek authoritative interpretation in conflicting matters.

4. Avoid appeals contrary to CBDT circulars.

VII. Comparative Position with IT Act, 1961

Sections 367 and 368 broadly correspond to Sections 261 and 262 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The structural continuity reflects legislative intent to preserve hierarchical appellate safeguards while modernizing the Act.

VIII. Key Doctrinal Observations

1. Section 367 embodies principle of judicial filtering.

2. It prevents Supreme Court docket overload.

3. It preserves importance of High Court as final fact-finding authority.

4. It ensures only nationally significant issues escalate.

Section 368 ensures procedural discipline and implementation clarity.

IX. Common Misconceptions Clarified

1. It is not automatic appeal – certification is mandatory.

2. It is not rehearing of entire case – confined to law.

3. It does not bar SLP – constitutional remedy remains open.

4. Costs are real risk – not symbolic.

X. Practical Flow Chart

High Court Judgment →
Application for Certificate →
Certificate Granted →
Appeal Filed under CPC procedure →
Hearing on Substantial Question of Law →
Supreme Court Decision →
Effect Given under Section 365(10) mechanism.

XI. Illustrative Scenarios

Scenario 1: Conflicting High Court Rulings

If Delhi HC and Bombay HC interpret a deduction differently, certification likely justified.

Scenario 2: Pure Factual Dispute

Certificate unlikely; appeal not maintainable.

Scenario 3: Constitutional Challenge

Certification strongly possible.

XII. Broader Constitutional Harmony

Sections 367–368 align with:

• Article 133 (civil appeals)

• Article 136 (SLP)

• Article 141 (binding precedent)

They integrate tax law within constitutional appellate structure.

XIII. Conclusion

Sections 367 and 368 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 form the apex layer of statutory appellate architecture. They strike a careful balance:

• Providing access to Supreme Court,

• Ensuring judicial filtration,

• Enforcing procedural rigor,

• Maintaining administrative accountability.

For taxpayers, they represent final safeguard against erroneous High Court interpretation. For Revenue, they provide mechanism to protect public exchequer and ensure uniform tax law across India.

Their proper use demands strategic prudence, procedural discipline, and substantive clarity.

Strict and Beneficial Interpretation in Statutory Construction:

A Comparative Doctrinal Analysis of Strictissimi Juris, Penal Construction, and Remedial Liberalism

Abstract

The doctrines of strict and beneficial interpretation occupy a central place in statutory construction across common law jurisdictions. While strict construction operates as a safeguard against over-expansion of penal or fiscal liability, beneficial construction advances legislative remedies in welfare-oriented statutes. This article undertakes a doctrinal analysis of four foundational maxims—Strictissimi juris, Beneficium accipere debet secundum legem, the strict construction of penal statutes, and the liberal construction of remedial statutes. Drawing from Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence and comparative developments in the United Kingdom and United States, the article explores the philosophical foundations, judicial applications, and evolving tensions between textualism and purposivism in the modern era.

I. Introduction: The Dual Imperatives of Restraint and Advancement

Statutory interpretation requires courts to navigate two competing imperatives: restraint and advancement. Restraint demands fidelity to legislative language, particularly where liberty or property is at stake. Advancement requires the court to give effect to legislative purpose, particularly where statutes are remedial or protective in nature.

The interpretative traditions of common law have crystallized this dialectic into structured doctrines. Penal statutes are strictly construed; remedial statutes are liberally construed. Exemptions must be strictly proved; welfare entitlements are generously applied. These doctrines are neither arbitrary nor contradictory; they are grounded in constitutional values—liberty, certainty, fairness, and social justice.

This article situates these principles within the broader theory of statutory interpretation and traces their comparative evolution.

II. Strictissimi Juris: The Strictest Interpretation of Law

A. Meaning and Historical Origins

The maxim Strictissimi juris—“of the strictest right”—emerged from English common law as a principle that certain legal rights and liabilities must be interpreted narrowly and precisely. It applies most prominently to:

1. Penal statutes

2. Taxing statutes

3. Provisions conferring special privileges

4. Jurisdiction-conferring statutes

The doctrine reflects the classical liberal suspicion of expansive state power.

B. Indian Jurisprudence on Strictissimi Juris

The Indian Supreme Court has consistently affirmed strict construction in taxation. In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala, AIR 1957 SC 657,[1] the Court held that a taxing statute must be strictly construed; nothing can be read in or implied.

Similarly, in CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons, (1966) 60 ITR 392 (SC),[2] the Court reiterated that if a taxpayer does not fall squarely within charging provisions, no tax can be imposed by inference.

In Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., (2018) 9 SCC 1,[3] a Constitution Bench clarified that ambiguity in exemption provisions must be interpreted strictly, and the burden lies on the assessee to establish eligibility.

These decisions affirm that strictissimi juris is not merely a rule of grammar but a constitutional safeguard in fiscal governance.

C. United Kingdom Perspective

In the UK, strict construction of penal and taxing statutes was historically dominant. In Partington v. Attorney-General (1869) LR 4 HL 100,[4] Lord Cairns stated that if a person does not fall within the letter of the law, he cannot be taxed.

However, the UK moved toward purposive interpretation after Pepper v. Hart [1993] AC 593,[5] allowing reference to parliamentary debates where statutory ambiguity exists. Nonetheless, fiscal and penal statutes retain strict interpretative tendencies.

D. United States Perspective

The U.S. Supreme Court historically adhered to strict construction of penal statutes under the “rule of lenity.” In United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76 (1820),[6] Chief Justice Marshall emphasized that penal laws must be construed strictly.

Similarly, in tax law, the Court in Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55 (1930),[7] held that tax exemptions must be narrowly construed.

However, modern American jurisprudence integrates textualism and purposivism, particularly under Justice Scalia’s influence, reinforcing textual fidelity while allowing structured purposive reasoning.

E. Normative Justification

Strictissimi juris serves:

• Certainty in taxation

• Protection of liberty in penal law

• Limitation of state coercion

• Preservation of separation of powers

The doctrine prevents courts from becoming legislative actors.

III. Beneficium Accipere Debet Secundum Legem: Benefits Must Be Taken According to Law

A. Conceptual Meaning

This maxim requires strict compliance with statutory conditions before claiming a benefit. It prevents equitable enlargement of exemptions or concessions.

B. Indian Supreme Court Jurisprudence

In Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606,[8] the Supreme Court held that exemption notifications must be strictly construed and the burden lies on the claimant.

In Dilip Kumar & Co.,[3] the Constitution Bench affirmed that ambiguity in exemption provisions must be resolved in favour of the Revenue.

These cases establish that benefits are creatures of statute; courts cannot expand them beyond legislative design.

C. UK and US Comparisons

In the UK, exemption clauses are narrowly construed unless the statute is clearly beneficial. In IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1,[9] strict adherence to statutory text governed tax avoidance disputes.

In the US, tax exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer, as in Helvering v. Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, 311 U.S. 46 (1940).[10]

The comparative consensus is clear: exemptions demand strict compliance.

IV. Penal Statutes to be Strictly Construed

A. The Rule of Lenity

The strict construction of penal statutes finds expression in the rule of lenity. Ambiguity in criminal law is resolved in favour of the accused.

In India, Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 496,[11] held that penal provisions must be strictly interpreted.

Similarly, in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta, (2009) 1 SCC 516,[12] the Court reiterated that criminal liability cannot be created by stretching statutory language.

B. UK Approach

The UK historically adhered to strict penal construction. However, modern cases like R v. R [1992] 1 AC 599[13] demonstrate purposive adaptation in criminal law, though without abandoning clarity requirements.

C. US Rule of Lenity

The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed lenity in United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008),[14] holding that ambiguity in criminal statutes must benefit the defendant.

The rule of lenity is seen as a constitutional doctrine grounded in due process.

D. Limits of Strict Penal Construction

Strict construction does not justify absurd interpretation. Courts must give effect to legislative intent but not invent crimes.

V. Remedial Statutes to be Liberally Construed

A. Concept and Scope

Remedial statutes seek to cure mischief and protect disadvantaged groups. Courts adopt liberal interpretation to advance remedy.

B. Indian Jurisprudence

In Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213,[15] the Supreme Court adopted expansive interpretation of “industry” under labour law to protect workers.

In Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corp., (1985) 4 SCC 71,[16] the Court emphasized that welfare statutes must receive liberal construction.

Similarly, consumer protection laws and land reform statutes have been interpreted liberally.

C. UK Approach

In Smith v. Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830,[17] the court applied purposive reasoning in interpreting prostitution laws. Welfare statutes are generally construed liberally to promote policy objectives.

D. United States Approach

In Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332 (1967),[18] the U.S. Supreme Court held that remedial securities legislation must be broadly construed to protect investors.

American courts frequently interpret civil rights statutes liberally to advance equality objectives.

VI. Tension Between Strict and Beneficial Interpretation

Statutes often contain both penal and remedial elements. For example:

• Environmental laws impose penalties while protecting ecology.

• Anti-corruption statutes punish misconduct but promote integrity.

Courts must balance strict penal construction with liberal remedial interpretation.

In India, this balancing is evident in economic offence cases, where penal consequences are strictly construed but regulatory objectives are acknowledged.

VII. Modern Trends: Textualism vs Purposivism

Modern statutory interpretation debates—especially in the US—contrast textualism (Justice Scalia) with purposivism (Justice Breyer). Textualists emphasize strict adherence to statutory language. Purposivists consider legislative intent and statutory objectives.

India and the UK adopt a blended approach: textual clarity governs penal and fiscal provisions, while purposive interpretation governs remedial statutes.

VIII. Theoretical Synthesis

The four maxims collectively form a coherent interpretative framework:

1. Strictissimi juris protects against coercive overreach.

2. Beneficium secundum legem prevents unjustified enrichment through statutory loopholes.

3. Penal strict construction safeguards liberty.

4. Remedial liberal construction advances justice and welfare.

The apparent contradiction dissolves when viewed through constitutional principles: liberty requires clarity; justice requires generosity.

IX. Conclusion

Strict and beneficial interpretation represent calibrated judicial responses to legislative design. They are not mechanical rules but principled doctrines grounded in constitutional values.

In taxation and penal law, strictissimi juris ensures certainty and protects liberty. In welfare legislation, liberal construction ensures that statutory remedies are not rendered illusory.

Comparative analysis across India, the UK, and the US demonstrates enduring adherence to these principles, though applied with modern nuance.

Ultimately, statutory interpretation is a disciplined art of balance—between fidelity to text and fidelity to justice.

Footnotes

[1] A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala, AIR 1957 SC 657.
[2] CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons, (1966) 60 ITR 392 (SC).
[3] Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., (2018) 9 SCC 1.
[4] Partington v. Attorney-General (1869) LR 4 HL 100.
[5] Pepper v. Hart [1993] AC 593 (HL).
[6] United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76 (1820).
[7] Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55 (1930).
[8] Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606.
[9] IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 (HL).
[10] Helvering v. Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, 311 U.S. 46 (1940).
[11] Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 496.
[12] R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta, (2009) 1 SCC 516.
[13] R v. R [1992] 1 AC 599 (HL).
[14] United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008).
[15] Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213.
[16] Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corp., (1985) 4 SCC 71.
[17] Smith v. Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830.
[18] Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332 (1967).

Kunshan Q Tech Microelectronics (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2026] 183 taxmann.com 96 (Delhi – Trib.), ITA No. 5356/Del/2024, AY 2021-22, order dated 20-01-2026

1. Main Ratio as Catch Note (Core Holding)

Catch-note ratio: When a corporate assessee’s case is transferred by an authority who inherently lacks jurisdiction (here, a non-corporate charge PCIT purporting to transfer a corporate charge case), the Section 127 transfer order is void ab initio; and once the foundation fails, all consequential proceedings—including draft assessment (s.144C(1)), DRP directions, and final assessment (s.143(3) r/w s.144C(13))—become nullities in law. Further, the statutory bar in Section 124(3) (time-bar for challenging jurisdiction) does not operate where the defect is not a mere territorial/administrative irregularity but a case of inherent lack of power and where the transfer order itself was not communicated to the assessee until Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal framed the central issue as whether the Section 127 order, being passed by a non-jurisdictional authority, is non-est and consequently whether everything done thereafter is legally unsustainable.

2. Facts of the Case (Chronology and Jurisdictional Setting)

The assessee is a company (corporate assessee) with principal place of business and factory at Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-10 passed an order under Section 127 transferring the assessee’s case to DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi.

After the transfer, the AO issued a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1); the assessee filed objections; the DRP issued directions; and a final assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r/w 144C(13).

At the Tribunal stage, the assessee raised an additional legal ground: that PCIT Delhi-10 held non-corporate charge and therefore had no jurisdiction to transfer the case of a corporate assessee; consequently, the transfer order was void and all later proceedings collapse.

A significant factual element noted by the Tribunal is that the Revenue did not communicate the Section 127 order to the assessee, and it was furnished only after the Tribunal directed that it be supplied during the hearing stage.

(This fact becomes decisive while dealing with Section 124(3) limitation arguments.)

3. Decision of the AO and Reasons (What the AO Did and Why It Became Vulnerable)

The assessment was framed through the DRP route (draft order → objections → DRP directions → final order). The appeal itself was filed against the final assessment order dated 29.10.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r/w 144C(13).

The grounds extracted in the order show that the assessment was high-pitched, converting a returned loss into assessed income and making substantial additions (including transfer pricing adjustment, depreciation issues, stock difference, section 69C, etc.).

However, the Tribunal’s decisive reasoning did not proceed to merits of these additions. Instead, it treated the jurisdictional challenge as going to the root, because the AO’s authority to act (DCIT Central Circle-30) itself depended upon the validity of the Section 127 transfer order.

In that sense, the AO’s “decision” became vulnerable not due to the correctness of additions, but because the entire action chain rested on a transfer that was alleged to be issued by an officer without competence to do so in the first place.

4. Analysis of Facts and Decision of the Tribunal in Approving the Order (Tribunal’s Jurisdictional Logic and Findings)

4.1 Admission of additional ground (jurisdiction can be raised at Tribunal)

The assessee moved an additional ground challenging jurisdiction via invalid Section 127 transfer. The Tribunal admitted it as a pure legal ground, relying on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), holding that jurisdictional issues going to the root can be raised at the appellate stage when facts are on record / public domain.

The Revenue objected, arguing that facts were not on record and required investigation and that the assessee never challenged the transfer earlier. The Tribunal rejected that objection, noting that the jurisdiction of PCIT over assessees is in public domain, hence does not require fresh fact-finding.

4.2 Tribunal’s framing of the issue: competence of PCIT Delhi-10

The Tribunal focused on the jurisdictional allocation in Delhi: PCIT Delhi-10 held charge over non-corporate assessees, whereas for a corporate assessee whose name begins with the alphabet “K”, the charge lay with PCIT Delhi-5.

From that, the Tribunal reasoned that PCIT Delhi-10 could not assume power to transfer a corporate assessee’s case, because the authority had no inherent jurisdiction over that assessee class.

4.3 “Inherent lack of jurisdiction” vs “irregular exercise”: nullity doctrine

The Tribunal treated the defect as inherent lack of jurisdiction, not a curable procedural irregularity. It held that such lack of power cannot be cured “under any provision of law” and that “once a nullity is always a nullity”.

This distinction is doctrinally crucial. If the case were only about territorial jurisdiction disputes or administrative convenience, Section 124 (and its limitation under 124(3)) might operate. But when the transferring authority itself is incompetent for that assessee class, the act is treated as non-est from inception.

4.4 Section 124(3) bar rejected: it applies to territorial jurisdiction disputes, not inherent incompetence

The Revenue argued the assessee is barred by Section 124(3) because it did not object within the stipulated time after notice under 143(2)/142(1) and because Section 124(3) does not carve out exceptions for transfer-based jurisdiction.

The Tribunal rejected this by holding:

1. the assessee was not challenging territorial jurisdiction; it was challenging the very competence of PCIT Delhi-10 to pass a Section 127 order for a corporate assessee; and

2. the Revenue failed to communicate the Section 127 order until the Tribunal stage, making the Section 124(3) objection unrealistic on facts.

The Tribunal supported this view by relying on coordinate bench decisions that Section 124(3) limitation is targeted at territorial jurisdiction objections, not foundational defects in assumption of jurisdiction where statutory transfer order is absent/invalid.

4.5 Tribunal rejects Revenue’s “Section 127 is administrative; cannot be challenged before ITAT” argument

Revenue contended that Section 127 order is administrative and not appealable and that the assessee should have challenged it before the High Court; therefore, it cannot be questioned indirectly before ITAT.

The Tribunal called this argument misplaced and held the assessee can challenge legality of a Section 127 order (and consequential assessment) before ITAT where jurisdiction is in issue, especially when the Revenue could not explain how a non-corporate charge PCIT assumed power to transfer a corporate assessee.

4.6 Final conclusion: Section 127 order void; assessment and all proceedings quashed

The Tribunal concluded that PCIT Delhi-10 had no jurisdiction over the corporate assessee to pass the transfer order. Therefore, the Section 127 order was void ab initio, and consequently, all subsequent proceedings including the final assessment order were without jurisdiction, null in law, and were quashed.

5. Summary Analysis of Case Laws Referred in the Tribunal’s Judgment (What Each Case Contributes)

(A) On admission of additional jurisdictional grounds at ITAT stage

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC): establishes that a pure question of law going to the root can be raised at the Tribunal stage if it does not require new facts. Tribunal used this to admit the additional ground.

(B) On distinction between lack of jurisdiction vs irregular exercise

CIT v. Bharatkumar Modi (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom.) / 113 Taxman 386: relied for the proposition that proceedings are nullities when the authority has no power to “have seisin” over the matter — i.e., inherent lack of jurisdiction.

(C) On Section 124(3) limitation confined to territorial jurisdiction objections

ITO v. Bhagyaarna Gems & Jewellery (P.) Ltd. (2025) 171 taxmann.com 689 (Raipur-Trib.): followed to hold Section 124(3) obligation applies where objection pertains to territorial jurisdiction; it does not bar challenge where the grievance is absence/invalidity of mandatory Section 127 transfer order.

Nasir Ali v. Addl. CIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 515 / 181 ITD 30 (Delhi-Trib.) and Pr. CIT v. Nasir Ali (Delhi HC, ITA 133/2021, order dated 20-03-2024): cited to emphasize that Section 124 operates only where AO has been vested with jurisdiction by proper order/notification; where the authority lacks empowerment, Section 124(3) does not bar challenge.

(D) On mandatory requirement of a valid Section 127 transfer to confer jurisdiction

Vishan Gunna v. ACIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 959 (Delhi-Trib.): cited (including its discussion of Raj Sheela Growth Fund line) to reiterate that without a valid order u/s 127, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on transferee AO; and that such jurisdictional void is distinguishable from territorial disputes under Section 124.

(E) On communication/validity of transfer order (procedural fairness dimension)

Ajantha Industries v. CBDT (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC) is listed among cases referred (para 26 in the headnote listing).

Its classic contribution (doctrinally) is that reasons and proper communication of transfer are not empty formalities. In this case, the Tribunal’s factual emphasis that the Revenue failed to communicate the Section 127 order until ITAT stage aligns with that fairness logic.

(F) Jurisdiction under Section 124 linked to principal place of business (supporting authorities relied upon by assessee)

The assessee’s written submissions (reproduced in the order) cite Supreme Court/High Court rulings including Mansarovar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2023) 149 taxmann.com 178 (SC) for the principle that jurisdiction is determined by principal place of business (not PAN history/registered office), along with supporting older authorities.

Even though the Tribunal ultimately decided on the more direct “corporate vs non-corporate charge” incompetence, these cases enrich the jurisdictional canvas and rebut Revenue’s tendency to rely on PAN-history administrative allocations.

6. Application of the Judgment (Practical and Doctrinal Uses)

6.1 Litigation use: strongest “jurisdiction-first” strike in DRP cases

This judgment is a powerful tool for taxpayers in DRP-route assessments (144C), because it shows that even an advanced stage—draft order, DRP directions, final order—can collapse if the AO’s jurisdiction is derivative of a void Section 127 transfer order.

The key is to identify whether the transferor authority had competence under Section 120/notifications/charge allocation.

6.2 Defensive doctrine against Section 124(3) limitation plea

Revenue frequently invokes Section 124(3) to argue waiver/time-bar. Kunshan provides a doctrinal answer: where the challenge is not “territorial correctness” but the very competence of the authority issuing Section 127, 124(3) cannot be used as a shield—particularly where the transfer order itself was not communicated to the assessee.

6.3 Administrative law governance: “charge allocation” is jurisdictional, not cosmetic

The Tribunal treated “corporate vs non-corporate charge” and alphabet-based allocation as going to the root of competence.

Practically, this means that internal CBDT/Department charge notifications and jurisdiction lists are not merely administrative convenience instruments; they can determine whether an authority has legal power to act.

6.4 For the Department: compliance checklist

For Revenue authorities, the case operates as a compliance warning:

• ensure the correct jurisdictional PCIT/CIT passes Section 127 orders for the assessee class;

• ensure communication/service of the transfer order contemporaneously; and

• ensure the record clearly supports competence (otherwise proceedings risk total annulment).

6.5 Broader principle: Sublato fundamento cadit opus in tax jurisdiction

The assessee invoked the maxim “Sublato fundamento cadit opus” (once foundation is removed, superstructure must fall), and the Tribunal’s conclusion effectively implements it: once transfer order is void, everything built upon it is void.

This principle can be applied beyond Section 127—e.g., where foundational jurisdictional notifications/orders under Section 120(4)(b) are absent, or where statutory preconditions to assumption of jurisdiction are missing.

From first Feb to 17th Feb I was busy in updating my book on “Law relating to Block assessments” in accordance with IT Act 2025, applicable w.e.f 01-04-2026 to be published by Taxmann. Hence i could not write Blogs during this period.

Buckeye Trust v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
[2026] 183 taxmann.com 381 (Bangalore – Trib.) decided on 12-02-2026

1. Main Ratio (Catch Note)

The Tribunal held that an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) without proper inquiry or verification of material facts, especially in cases involving exemption claims and cross-border or trust-related income structures, renders the assessment order both “erroneous” and “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” within the meaning of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. Where the AO fails to examine critical issues such as genuineness of transactions, eligibility of exemption, application of income, or compliance with statutory conditions, the Principal Commissioner is justified in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal further clarified that lack of inquiry itself constitutes error, and the Commissioner need not conclusively establish escapement of income at the revision stage.

2. Facts of the Case

The assessee, Buckeye Trust, was a trust entity claiming certain income exemptions and favorable tax treatment under applicable provisions of the Income-tax Act. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee filed its return declaring income in accordance with its understanding of statutory exemptions. The return involved issues relating to trust income, application of funds, possible cross-border elements, and treatment of specific receipts under exemption provisions.

The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) by the Assessing Officer. The AO accepted the returned income substantially without making detailed inquiries into certain material aspects such as:

• Whether the trust was genuinely eligible for exemption in respect of the claimed income;
• Whether statutory conditions regarding application of income were satisfied;
• Whether specific receipts were in the nature of income liable to tax;
• Whether documentation supporting exemption claims was verified;
• Whether foreign contributions or trust structure issues required deeper scrutiny.

Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), upon examination of assessment records, formed an opinion that the AO had failed to conduct proper inquiries and had accepted the claim of the assessee without adequate verification. The PCIT invoked powers under Section 263 and passed a revisional order setting aside the assessment with directions for fresh adjudication after proper inquiry.

The assessee challenged the revisional order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench.

3. Decision of the Assessing Officer and Reasons

The AO completed assessment accepting the assessee’s position on exemption and computation of income. The order indicated that the AO relied primarily on documents submitted by the assessee and did not undertake independent verification or deeper examination of:

• The nature and character of receipts;
• The compliance with statutory exemption conditions;
• The nexus between income and charitable or trust objectives;
• Possible tax implications of structural arrangements.

The reasoning in the assessment order was brief and did not reflect detailed application of mind. There was no elaborate discussion on whether statutory thresholds were satisfied or whether the exemption was correctly claimed in law.

From the record examined by the PCIT, it appeared that:

• The AO had not issued specific questionnaires addressing the disputed issues;
• There was no discussion on statutory interpretation of relevant exemption provisions;
• No comparative analysis of accounts or financial statements was undertaken;
• No verification of documentary evidence beyond mere acceptance was made.

The assessment order thus reflected an acceptance-based approach rather than an inquiry-based adjudication. The AO appeared to proceed on the assumption that documents furnished by the assessee were sufficient, without probing deeper into their correctness or legal sufficiency.

4. Analysis of Facts and Decision of the CIT in Passing Order under Section 263

Jurisdictional Preconditions

Section 263 empowers the Commissioner to revise an assessment order if two conditions are satisfied:

1. The order is erroneous; and

2. The error is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

The PCIT examined the assessment records and identified that the AO failed to examine critical aspects relating to exemption eligibility and income characterization.

Findings of the CIT

The PCIT observed:

• The AO did not conduct necessary verification of the trust’s entitlement to exemption.
• There was absence of inquiry into application of income.
• There was no analysis of whether statutory requirements were satisfied.
• Acceptance of the return without scrutiny resulted in potential revenue loss.

The CIT concluded that the assessment order suffered from lack of inquiry, which itself constitutes error. The PCIT relied on settled jurisprudence that failure to make inquiries which are warranted renders an order erroneous.

The revisional authority emphasized that an AO must demonstrate application of mind. A silent order, particularly in matters involving exemption claims, cannot be presumed to be based on due inquiry.

Legal Reasoning

The CIT’s reasoning was anchored in precedents such as:

• Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) – where the Supreme Court held that an order is erroneous if passed without application of mind.
• The principle that failure to conduct inquiry when required is distinct from inadequate inquiry.
• The doctrine that the Commissioner need not conclusively establish tax liability at the Section 263 stage.

The CIT held that the AO’s order was not merely a case of different possible views but one of absence of examination altogether.

Accordingly, the assessment was set aside with directions for fresh adjudication after proper inquiry.

5. Analysis of Facts and Decision of the Tribunal in Approving the Order under Section 263

Scope of Tribunal’s Examination

The Tribunal examined:

• Whether the twin conditions of Section 263 were satisfied;
• Whether the AO had conducted inquiry;
• Whether the CIT exceeded jurisdiction;
• Whether the issue involved “possible view” doctrine.

Tribunal’s Findings

The Tribunal upheld the order under Section 263. It reasoned as follows:

(A) Lack of Inquiry vs. Inadequate Inquiry

The Tribunal observed that the assessment order did not reflect meaningful inquiry. It distinguished between:

• A case where the AO conducts inquiry but arrives at a debatable conclusion; and
• A case where the AO fails to conduct inquiry at all.

The present case fell into the second category. The Tribunal emphasized that absence of inquiry itself renders the order erroneous.

(B) Erroneous Nature of the Order

The Tribunal noted that exemption provisions require strict compliance. Acceptance of exemption claims without verification constitutes legal error. An order passed mechanically without examining statutory compliance cannot be sustained.

(C) Prejudice to Revenue

The Tribunal held that potential loss of revenue due to non-examination of exemption eligibility satisfies the prejudice requirement. It is not necessary for the Commissioner to compute exact escapement at the revisional stage.

(D) No Change of Opinion

The Tribunal clarified that this was not a case of mere change of opinion. The AO had not formed a reasoned opinion in the first place. Therefore, revisional power was properly exercised.

(E) Judicial Discipline and Accountability

The Tribunal emphasized that assessment orders must reflect application of mind. The revisional power acts as supervisory control to ensure statutory compliance.

Doctrinal Observations

The judgment reinforces several key principles:

1. Section 263 is supervisory in nature.

2. Absence of inquiry equals error.

3. Exemption claims require strict scrutiny.

4. The Commissioner need not conclusively prove tax evasion at revision stage.

5. Mechanical assessment orders cannot be protected under “possible view” doctrine.

The Tribunal’s reasoning aligns with Supreme Court jurisprudence that emphasizes that an AO must conduct proper inquiry before granting exemptions.

(F) Comparative Doctrinal Note on Section 263 Jurisdiction

Buckeye Trust in Light of Malabar Industrial Co., Max India, and Gabriel India

I. Foundational Principle: Twin Conditions under Section 263

The jurisprudential starting point for understanding Section 263 is the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). The Court authoritatively laid down that two conditions must coexist before the Commissioner can invoke revisional jurisdiction:

1. The order of the Assessing Officer (AO) must be erroneous, and

2. The error must be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

The Court clarified that an order becomes erroneous when it is passed on incorrect assumption of facts, incorrect application of law, or without application of mind. Further, prejudice arises when lawful revenue is not realized due to such error.

In Buckeye Trust v. PCIT [2026] 183 taxmann.com 381 (Bang. – Trib.), the Tribunal expressly applied this twin-condition test. It held that failure of the AO to conduct proper inquiry into exemption eligibility rendered the order erroneous, and the potential loss of revenue satisfied the prejudice requirement. Thus, Buckeye Trust directly operationalizes the Malabar doctrine in the context of inadequate scrutiny of exemption claims.

II. Lack of Inquiry vs. Possible View: Gabriel India and Buckeye Trust

The Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) introduced a critical distinction between:

• Lack of inquiry, and

• Inadequate inquiry.

The Court held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner disagrees with the AO’s conclusion. If the AO has conducted inquiry and taken a possible view, the order cannot be branded erroneous simply because the Commissioner prefers another view. However, if there is total absence of inquiry, the order is erroneous.

This distinction became a cornerstone of revisional jurisprudence.

In Buckeye Trust, the Tribunal explicitly invoked this doctrinal divide. It concluded that the case involved lack of inquiry, not merely inadequate inquiry. The AO’s assessment order did not reflect examination of statutory conditions governing exemption, nor did it show application of mind to the nature of receipts or compliance requirements. The Tribunal therefore held that this was not a “possible view” case protected under Gabriel India, but one of non-application of mind.

Thus, Buckeye Trust strengthens Gabriel India’s principle by reaffirming that mechanical acceptance of claims without inquiry falls squarely within Section 263.

III. The “Possible View” Doctrine: Max India and Its Boundaries

The Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) further refined Section 263 jurisprudence. The Court held that where two views are possible and the AO has adopted one of them, the order cannot be treated as erroneous merely because the Commissioner prefers another view. Particularly in cases involving interpretation of complex provisions, the AO’s plausible view must be respected.

Max India thus safeguards interpretative discretion exercised in good faith after inquiry.

However, Max India presupposes that:

• The AO has examined the issue,

• Applied his mind, and

• Adopted a conscious view.

In Buckeye Trust, the Tribunal distinguished the case from Max India on precisely this ground. It observed that the AO had not engaged in interpretative reasoning at all. There was no evidence of evaluation, analysis, or application of legal tests governing exemption. Therefore, it was not a case of two possible views; it was a case of no view formed through inquiry. Consequently, the protection afforded by Max India was held inapplicable.

Buckeye Trust thus clarifies that the “possible view” doctrine cannot shield orders passed without scrutiny.

IV. Error and Prejudice: Convergence of Principles

In Malabar Industrial Co., the Supreme Court emphasized that an order passed without application of mind is erroneous. In Gabriel India, absence of inquiry was equated with error. In Max India, the Court insulated genuine interpretative choices from revision.

Buckeye Trust synthesizes these strands. The Tribunal reasoned:

• The AO’s failure to examine exemption compliance constituted legal error (Malabar principle).

• The absence of inquiry distinguished the case from “possible view” protection (Gabriel and Max India distinction).

• Potential revenue loss satisfied prejudice (Malabar test).

Thus, Buckeye Trust operates as a doctrinal reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s structured approach rather than an expansion of revisional power.

V. Exemption Claims and Heightened Scrutiny

A significant dimension of Buckeye Trust is its emphasis on strict scrutiny of exemption claims. Courts have consistently held that exemption provisions must be interpreted strictly, and the burden lies on the assessee to establish eligibility.

Malabar Industrial Co. recognizes that failure to examine statutory compliance renders an order erroneous. Buckeye Trust applies this logic specifically to trust/exemption cases, holding that acceptance without verification cannot be sustained.

This reflects a broader administrative law principle: where statutory benefits are conditional, administrative authorities must verify compliance before granting them.

VI. Supervisory Nature of Section 263

The Supreme Court in Malabar described Section 263 as a supervisory jurisdiction intended to correct erroneous orders causing revenue prejudice. Gabriel India clarified that this jurisdiction is not appellate in nature. Max India limited its misuse against plausible interpretations.

Buckeye Trust reaffirms that Section 263 serves as a mechanism to ensure accountability in assessment proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that revision is justified where the assessment order does not reflect application of mind. It is not a power of substitution of opinion but of correction of non-adjudication.

Thus, Buckeye Trust harmonizes supervisory control with judicial restraint.

VII. Comparative Matrix

Case

Core Principle

Application in Buckeye Trust

Malabar Industrial Co. (2000)

Twin conditions: error + prejudice

Both conditions satisfied due to lack of inquiry

Gabriel India (1993)

Lack of inquiry ≠ possible view

Classified as lack of inquiry

Max India (2007)

Possible view doctrine protects AO

Not applicable because no conscious view formed

Buckeye Trust (2026)

Failure to examine exemption = error

Revision upheld under Section 263

VIII. Doctrinal Synthesis

Taken together, these decisions establish a coherent jurisprudential framework:

1. Section 263 requires demonstrable error and prejudice.

2. Lack of inquiry itself constitutes error.

3. A possible view formed after inquiry cannot be revised merely due to disagreement.

4. Mechanical or perfunctory assessments are vulnerable to revision.

Buckeye Trust does not expand revisional jurisdiction; rather, it faithfully applies Supreme Court doctrine to a fact situation involving inadequate scrutiny of exemption claims.

(G) Concluding Analytical Summary

The case of Buckeye Trust v. PCIT reiterates that Section 263 is not a power of mere substitution of opinion but a corrective jurisdiction invoked when assessment orders are passed without due application of mind. The Tribunal affirmed that where the AO fails to investigate statutory compliance in exemption matters, the order becomes both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests.

The decision underscores the broader administrative law principle that statutory authorities must exercise discretion judiciously and with reasoned inquiry. Acceptance without scrutiny is not adjudication.

The Tribunal’s affirmation of the revisional order strengthens the accountability mechanism within income-tax administration and reinforces the doctrinal distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry.”

The evolution from Gabriel India to Malabar Industrial Co., through Max India, and culminating in Buckeye Trust, reflects a balanced jurisprudence on Section 263. Courts seek to protect genuine assessment discretion while preventing arbitrary or negligent acceptance of claims.

Buckeye Trust reinforces that Section 263 is triggered not by interpretative difference but by failure of adjudicatory duty. It preserves the integrity of assessment proceedings while remaining aligned with established Supreme Court authority.

In doctrinal terms, Buckeye Trust stands not as a departure but as a reaffirmation of the structured, disciplined approach laid down by the Supreme Court. It illustrates that revisional power remains a vital supervisory safeguard within the income-tax framework, particularly where statutory exemptions are granted without proper inquiry.

Above file can also be viewed at

https://1drv.ms/b/c/0f527a60e6f7d291/IQDXTG0rPFrQTrEbPPH5VpceASlRgib6T1WEA1hXh9NfM8w?e=inMJa2

Section 366

366. (1) When an appeal has been filed before the High Court under section 365, it shall be heard by a bench of not less than two Judges of the High Court, and shall be decided as per the opinion of such Judges or of the majority, if any, of such Judges.

(2) Where there is no such majority, the Judges shall state the point of law upon which they differ and the case shall then be heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges of the High Court and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Judges who have heard the case including those who first heard it.

Analysis

Analysis of Section 366 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

(Hearing of Appeals by High Court)**

Section 366 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 lays down the procedural framework governing the hearing and decision-making mechanism of appeals filed before the High Court under Section 365. It is a structural provision intended to ensure judicial consistency, institutional integrity, and authoritative adjudication in substantial questions of law arising under the Act.

1. Bench Composition – Minimum Two Judges

Sub-section (1) mandates that an appeal filed before the High Court shall be heard by a bench of not less than two Judges. This requirement elevates such appeals to the status of a Division Bench matter. The legislative rationale is clear:

• Appeals under Section 365 involve substantial questions of law.

• Tax appeals often affect large revenue implications.

• Uniform interpretation of fiscal statutes is critical.

By requiring a Division Bench, the Act ensures that tax jurisprudence develops through collective judicial reasoning rather than single-judge adjudication.

2. Decision by Majority

Section 366(1) further provides that the appeal shall be decided according to:

• The opinion of such Judges; or

• The majority, if any, of such Judges.

Thus, where two Judges agree, their common opinion becomes the judgment of the Court. Where more than two Judges hear the matter (in special constitution cases), the majority view prevails. This aligns with general constitutional court practice under Articles 214–225 of the Constitution of India.

3. Situation of Divergence – Absence of Majority

Sub-section (2) addresses a situation where the Judges differ and no majority emerges—typically where a Division Bench of two Judges delivers split opinions.

In such cases:

• The Judges must formulate and clearly state the precise point of law on which they differ.

• The matter is not reheard entirely.

• Only the point of disagreement is referred.

This provision prevents unnecessary duplication of proceedings and confines reconsideration strictly to the disputed legal issue.

4. Reference to Third Judge (or Larger Bench)

The disputed point is then heard by:

• One or more other Judges of the High Court.

This mechanism is commonly known as “reference to a third Judge.” The newly hearing Judge(s) examine only the framed point of law. The final decision is then rendered according to:

The majority opinion of all Judges who have heard the case, including those who first heard it.

Thus, if two Judges originally differed and a third Judge agrees with one of them, that view becomes the majority and binds the outcome.

5. Nature of Issues – Point of Law Only

Section 366 applies to appeals under Section 365, which involve substantial questions of law. The High Court does not ordinarily reappreciate facts. Therefore, the disagreement contemplated under Section 366(2) must relate strictly to legal interpretation—such as:

• Scope of a deeming provision,

• Interpretation of exemption clauses,

• Validity of reassessment,

• Applicability of penalty provisions,

• Constitutional challenges to statutory provisions.

6. Safeguard Against Judicial Deadlock

The provision prevents judicial stalemate in fiscal matters. Without such a mechanism:

• A split verdict could create uncertainty.

• Revenue administration could be affected.

• Conflicting precedents may emerge.

Section 366 ensures a conclusive determination by institutional majority.

7. Continuity with Earlier Law

Section 366 corresponds broadly to procedural provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 governing High Court appeals (such as Section 260A read with High Court Rules). The 2025 Act codifies the mechanism explicitly within the statute, enhancing clarity and procedural transparency.

8. Constitutional Harmony

The section operates harmoniously with:

• Article 214 (High Courts),

• Article 225 (Jurisdiction and powers of High Courts),

• Article 141 (Binding nature of Supreme Court decisions).

It does not alter constitutional powers but structures statutory appellate procedure within the tax framework.

9. Practical Implications in Tax Litigation

In high-stakes tax disputes involving:

• Transfer pricing,

• Block assessments,

• GAAR application,

• Treaty interpretation,

• Deemed income provisions (Sections 102–105),

Section 366 ensures authoritative and majority-backed legal interpretation, reducing ambiguity in tax administration.

10. Jurisprudential Significance

The provision reflects three core principles:

1. Collegial decision-making in fiscal adjudication.

2. Finality through majority determination.

3. Precision in legal framing, as only identified points of law are referred.

Conclusion

Section 366 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 is a procedural yet institutionally significant provision. It ensures that High Court appeals under the Act are decided by a Division Bench, resolved by majority opinion, and conclusively determined even in cases of judicial divergence through a structured reference mechanism. In the broader architecture of tax adjudication, it reinforces judicial coherence, reduces interpretational fragmentation, and strengthens the credibility of appellate tax jurisprudence.

Literal and Grammatical Interpretation:

Exclusionary Maxims in Indian Supreme Court Jurisprudence

I. Introduction: Textual Discipline and Judicial Restraint

Literal and grammatical interpretation occupies a foundational position in statutory construction. While modern jurisprudence recognizes purposive, contextual, and constitutional interpretation, courts consistently affirm that interpretation must begin with the statutory text. Within the literal framework, certain exclusionary maxims serve as structural safeguards to preserve textual integrity. Among the most significant are: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est, and Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum. These maxims are not technical formulae; they are doctrinal tools ensuring fidelity to enacted language, respect for legislative supremacy, and preservation of separation of powers. Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence demonstrates their enduring vitality.

II. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: Express Mention Implies Exclusion

Conceptual Foundation

The maxim Expressio unius est exclusio alterius rests on the presumption that legislative drafting is deliberate. When the legislature expressly mentions certain categories, conditions, or powers, it signals an intention to exclude others not mentioned. The logic is inferential but rooted in textual fidelity. If Parliament intended broader coverage, it would have said so.

Judicial Affirmation

In Shahadara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. S.S. Railway Workers Union, AIR 1969 SC 513, the Supreme Court declined to extend statutory benefits to categories not expressly included. The Court observed that express enumeration of specific classes indicates conscious legislative limitation. Judicial enlargement would amount to rewriting the statute.

This reasoning was reinforced in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323, where the Court held that courts cannot add words or categories not found in statutory language. If Parliament has expressly provided for certain beneficiaries and omitted others, courts must presume intentional exclusion.

Similarly, in State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 437, the Court reiterated that explicit statutory provisions cannot be expanded by judicial creativity. Express inclusion confines scope.

Doctrinal Significance

The maxim protects statutory architecture. It is frequently invoked in tax law, service jurisprudence, and regulatory frameworks where eligibility and exemptions are specifically enumerated. It ensures predictability and prevents discretionary judicial expansion.

Limitations

The Court has cautioned that the maxim is not absolute. It applies only where legislative intent to exclude is evident from statutory structure. If enumeration appears illustrative rather than exhaustive, the presumption weakens.

III. Inclusio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: Inclusion as Deliberate Differentiation

Textual Inference

Closely allied to the previous maxim, Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius emphasizes that inclusion of one category implies exclusion of others. Legislative inclusion signals differentiation. The legislature chooses one and excludes the rest.

Supreme Court Application

In Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230, the Court warned against extending statutory provisions beyond expressly included situations. Justice Markandey Katju emphasized that courts must not overstep textual boundaries under the guise of purposive interpretation. Inclusion of specified cases implied exclusion of unspecified ones.

In Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 755, the Court interpreted statutory jurisdictional provisions. The inclusion of a specific forum for adjudication implied exclusion of other forums. The Court refused to broaden jurisdiction beyond express statutory assignment.

In Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar, (2010) 4 SCC 653, inclusion of defined procedural safeguards was held to exclude additional safeguards not provided in statute. The Court insisted that legislative specificity must be respected.

Analytical Implication

This maxim operates strongly where:

• Jurisdiction is conferred on specific authorities.

• Exemptions are granted to particular categories.

• Qualifications or disqualifications are enumerated.

It preserves legislative differentiation and structural coherence.

Contextual Moderation

Courts recognize that statutory context may sometimes rebut exclusionary inference. The maxim functions as a presumption, not a rigid command.

IV. Casus Omissus Pro Omisso Habendus Est: Judicial Non-Supplementation

Core Doctrine

The doctrine of Casus omissus holds that courts cannot supply omissions in legislation. If the legislature has omitted a situation, courts must treat the omission as deliberate unless doing so leads to absurdity or internal inconsistency.

This is perhaps the strongest expression of judicial restraint within literal interpretation.

Authoritative Pronouncements

In Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2002) 3 SCC 533, the Supreme Court emphatically held that courts cannot read into a provision something which is not there. The Court declared that a casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. This judgment is a landmark reaffirmation of textual fidelity.

Earlier, in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1992), the Court similarly held that courts cannot fill legislative gaps. If Parliament has failed to provide for a contingency, correction must come from legislative amendment.

In Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation, AIR 1966 SC 1678, the Court refused to insert words into municipal legislation to remedy perceived inadequacy.

However, in CIT v. National Taj Traders, (1980) 1 SCC 370, the Court acknowledged that in rare cases courts may interpret statutory language to give effect to clear legislative intent if omission appears accidental. Yet, the Court cautioned that such intervention is exceptional and must be justified by compelling contextual necessity.

Institutional Rationale

The doctrine protects separation of powers. If courts routinely filled statutory gaps, interpretation would collapse into legislation. The maxim therefore functions as a constitutional boundary.

V. Quando Aliquid Prohibetur Ex Directo, Prohibetur Et Per Obliquum: No Indirect Evasion

Conceptual Meaning

This maxim prevents circumvention. If the legislature prohibits something directly, the prohibition extends to indirect methods designed to achieve the same prohibited result. The doctrine ensures substantive compliance.

Supreme Court Elaboration

In McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, (1985) 3 SCC 230, the Supreme Court condemned tax avoidance devices intended to defeat statutory purpose while formally complying with textual requirements. Although later decisions refined the anti-avoidance doctrine, the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly remains influential.

In constitutional law, the same reasoning appears in K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1953 SC 375, where the Court articulated the doctrine of colourable legislation. It held that a legislature cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly. The substance, not merely form, determines validity.

In B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 7 SCC 231, the Court invalidated an attempt to indirectly circumvent constitutional disqualification provisions. The Court emphasized that constitutional prohibitions cannot be neutralized by formalistic devices.

Similarly, in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC 737, statutory prohibitions were interpreted to prevent indirect nullification.

Doctrinal Integration

Unlike purposive interpretation, this maxim does not expand statutory meaning but preserves textual prohibition from erosion through indirect mechanisms. It strengthens literal interpretation by preventing evasion.

VI. Harmonizing the Maxims: A Unified Framework

Though distinct, these four maxims operate as complementary tools:

• Expressio unius and Inclusio unius guard against unwarranted extension.

• Casus omissus restrains judicial supplementation.

• Quando prohibetur prevents circumvention of express prohibitions.

Together, they create a disciplined textual framework.

In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424, the Supreme Court clarified that interpretation must be holistic, but textual integrity remains central. Context informs meaning; it does not authorize rewriting.

VII. Critical Evaluation: Literalism and Its Limits

While these maxims promote certainty and restraint, rigid application may produce harsh results. The Supreme Court has therefore adopted a balanced approach. Literal interpretation is the starting point, but if it leads to absurdity or defeats legislative purpose, contextual and purposive methods may be invoked.

However, the Court consistently warns that such departures must be carefully justified. Literal exclusionary maxims remain foundational.

VIII. Conclusion: Textual Fidelity in Constitutional Democracy

Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence demonstrates enduring commitment to literal and grammatical interpretation. Through the exclusionary maxims discussed above, the Court has reinforced legislative supremacy, separation of powers, and rule of law.

Expressio unius prevents unauthorized expansion.

Inclusio unius preserves deliberate differentiation.

Casus omissus prohibits judicial legislation.

Quando prohibetur safeguards against evasion.

In an era of dynamic constitutional interpretation, these maxims continue to anchor statutory construction in textual discipline. They serve as stabilizing principles ensuring that courts interpret the law as enacted, not as imagined. Their enduring relevance lies in preserving the integrity of legislative language and maintaining the constitutional balance between branches of government.

Above file can also be viewed at

https://1drv.ms/b/c/0f527a60e6f7d291/IQCAWdB4r32CQqDbBV38wjaJAaMzShYSeOVviKrvDtI4_2o?e=wffReG

Jan 26-161

1. Penalty Not Leviable Where Addition Under Section 68 Does Not Increase Tax Liability

BMW Industries Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata[2026] 1 TMI 1194 (ITAT Kolkata), decided on 20 January 2026

The assessee challenged penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for multiple assessment years, where additions were made under section 68 by treating recorded sales as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal found that the sales in question were fully disclosed in the audited books of account and already included in the returned income. By re-characterising the same amounts as unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer had effectively subjected the same income to tax twice, without any increase in the total assessed income vis-à-vis the returned income. The Tribunal held that, in such circumstances, the “tax sought to be evaded” within the meaning of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) was nil, and therefore penalty could not be sustained. It further held that mere rejection of a claim or change in head of income does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, especially when all primary facts were disclosed. Relying on CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the penalties for all years under appeal and allowed the assessee’s appeals in full.

Jan 26-162

2. SLP Dismissed on Delay; Limitation Under Old Regime Governs Reopening for AY 2021–22

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Sheetal International Pvt. Ltd.
[2026] 1 TMI 1133 (Supreme Court), order dated 19 January 2026

The Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision holding that reassessment notices for AY 2021–22 could be issued under the new regime only if the limitation period under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime was still subsisting. The High Court had ruled that once the six-year limitation under the old law had expired, no notice under section 148 could be issued even after the introduction of the new reassessment regime. The Supreme Court, however, did not enter into the merits of the controversy, as it found that the SLP was filed with an unexplained delay of 320 days. Holding that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay, the Court dismissed the SLP on the ground of limitation alone. As a result, the Delhi High Court’s ruling on the applicability of old-regime limitation to reassessment under the new law remained undisturbed. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Jan 26-163

3. Penalty for Non-Compliance with Notice Deleted on Proof of Reasonable Cause

Chudaji Thakor Vasajada, Dhejia v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar [2026] 1 TMI 1311 (ITAT Ahmedabad), decided on 16 January 2026

The assessee, an individual farmer residing in a remote village, challenged a penalty of ₹10,000 levied under section 272A(1)(d) for alleged non-compliance with notices issued under section 142(1). The assessment as well as the penalty proceedings were completed ex parte, as communications were sent to the email ID of an advocate who had earlier assisted the assessee in obtaining a PAN. The assessee contended that, due to non-payment of professional fees, the advocate did not forward the emails, resulting in lack of knowledge of the proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessee was a small farmer with limited access to digital infrastructure and that no physical notices were served by the department, a fact admitted by the Revenue. It held that these circumstances constituted “reasonable cause” under section 273B, which protects assessees from penalty where failure is not deliberate. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum assessment had already been set aside by a coordinate bench for fresh adjudication. In view of the bona fide explanation and absence of willful default, the ITAT deleted the penalty in entirety and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee.

Jan 26-164

4. Right to File Return Electronically Enforced; Paper Return Treated as Timely

City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. ACIT & Ors.
[2026] 1 TMI 1325 (Bombay High Court), decided on 19 January 2026

The petitioner, a government-owned corporation, approached the High Court after being permitted by an interim judicial order to file a paper return for AY 2020-21 due to technical constraints on the income-tax portal. Although the paper return was filed within the time allowed by the Court, the Revenue contended that it could not process or assess any return unless filed electronically. The Bombay High Court accepted that statutory filing is required to be electronic but held that administrative or technical limitations cannot defeat substantive rights granted by judicial orders. Balancing both positions, the Court directed the Income Tax Department to open the portal within six weeks to enable electronic filing by the petitioner. It further ordered that once filed electronically, the return would be deemed to have been filed within time in terms of the earlier interim order. The Revenue was also directed to complete processing or assessment within twelve months. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the return and that all issues would remain open for assessment in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, reinforcing taxpayer rights in cases of portal-related constraints.

Jan 26-165

5. Final Assessment Orders Held Time-Barred Due to Combined Operation of Sections 144C and 153

Coca Cola India Inc. v. DDIT (International Taxation) & Ors.[2026] 1 TMI 1379 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 23 January 2026

This batch of appeals involved multiple assessment years where the assessee challenged the validity of final assessment orders passed under section 144C(13) on the ground of limitation. The Revenue argued that section 144C constituted a self-contained code and that limitation should be tested only with reference to timelines specified therein, independent of section 153. The Tribunal rejected this contention, holding that sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and inter-dependent, as both govern assessment timelines involving transfer pricing adjustments. Relying on the reasoning of the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT held that the overall limitation under section 153 continues to apply even where the Dispute Resolution Panel mechanism is invoked. On examination of undisputed dates, the Tribunal found that in all relevant years the final assessment orders were passed beyond the permissible limitation period. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue’s plea to defer adjudication on the ground of pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court, noting that the precedent relied upon by the assessee was not stayed. Consequently, the final assessment orders were held to be time-barred and were quashed.

Jan 26-166

6. No Recovery of TDS Shortfall Where Agents Have Paid Tax; Interest Alone Payable

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-XVII v. Royal Jordanian Airlines[2026] 1 TMI 1327 (Delhi High Court), decided on 22 January 2026

The Revenue appealed against the Tribunal’s decision concerning the airline’s failure to deduct tax at source under section 194H on supplementary commission paid to travel agents. The core issue was whether the airline could still be treated as an assessee in default when the agents had already paid income tax on such commission. The Delhi High Court followed the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Singapore Airlines Ltd., holding that although the supplementary commission constituted “commission” attracting section 194H, no further recovery of the TDS amount could be made from the airline once the income had been taxed in the hands of the agents. However, the Court clarified that interest under section 201(1A) was payable for the period of default until the agents discharged their tax liability. The Assessing Officer was directed to compute such interest and issue a demand limited to that extent. The Court also restricted the levy of penalties by invoking section 273B and clarified that verification of tax payment by agents would lie within the jurisdiction of their respective assessing officers. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Jan 26-167

7. SLP Disposed of as Issues Covered by Earlier Binding Judgment

Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.[2026] 1 TMI 1264 (Supreme Court), order dated 16 January 2026

The Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition raising multiple issues relating to allowability of interest on borrowed capital, treatment of surtax payments, provisions for bad and doubtful debts, MAT computation, and payments made towards excise duty. During the hearing, both parties fairly conceded that the issues raised were squarely covered by an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court arising from the same assessee’s case, which in turn had affirmed the decision of the Gujarat High Court. Taking note of this consensus, the Supreme Court disposed of the present SLP on the same terms as the earlier order, without entering into a fresh examination of the issues. The Court clarified that the legal position as settled in the earlier proceedings would govern the present matter as well. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly. This order reinforces the principle of judicial consistency and finality, particularly in long-running tax disputes involving recurring questions of law.

Jan 26-168

8. Cash Freight Payments Not Hit by Section 40A(3) When Paid Driver-Wise Within Prescribed Limits

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) v. Greyforce Industries Ltd.[2026] 1 TMI 1202 (ITAT Kolkata), decided on 20 January 2026

The Revenue challenged deletion of additions made under section 40A(3) and section 69C on the ground that the assessee had made cash payments exceeding ₹35,000 per day towards freight charges. The assessee, a cement manufacturer, explained that freight payments were made directly to individual truck drivers at the factory gate and not to transport companies or facilitators, and that no single driver received cash exceeding the statutory threshold in a day. The Tribunal examined statements recorded under section 131, impounded transporter accounts, cash vouchers, and affidavits of logistics facilitators, all of which corroborated the assessee’s claim that facilitators merely coordinated transport and did not receive freight payments. It further noted that the Assessing Officer neither rejected the books of account under section 145(3) nor conducted any independent enquiry to disprove the documentary evidence. With respect to alleged unrecorded cash payments based on mobile messages, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on unverified electronic messages without corroborative material. Upholding the findings of the CIT(A), the ITAT held that genuine business payments made to multiple truck drivers within prescribed limits do not attract section 40A(3), and unsupported allegations cannot justify additions. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed in full.

Jan 26-169

9. Additions Based Solely on CBIC/Service Tax Data Unsustainable Without Independent Enquiry

Deepsons (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi[2026] 1 TMI 1339 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 23 January 2026

The assessee challenged additions made on account of alleged under-reported turnover based on CBIC service tax data and unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation. The Assessing Officer treated differences between service tax returns and books of account as suppressed revenue without conducting any verification. The assessee explained that advances received were taxable under service tax but revenue was recognised only upon execution of sale deeds, and furnished detailed reconciliation statements. The Tribunal held that when an assessee disputes third-party data and provides explanations with documentary support, the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to conduct independent enquiries instead of mechanically relying on external databases over which the assessee has no control. On demonetisation deposits, the Tribunal accepted the explanation that cash deposits were sourced from earlier withdrawals duly reflected in the cash book, which had not been rejected. It further held that section 115BBE could not be applied retrospectively. In the absence of defects in books and corroborative evidence against the assessee, the ITAT deleted both additions and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee.

Jan 26-170

10. Cash Gifts from Relatives Not Taxable When Identity, Genuineness and Capacity Established

DCIT, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata v. Mira Bibi[2026] 1 TMI 1196 (ITAT Kolkata), decided on 20 January 2026

The Revenue appealed against deletion of addition under section 68 in respect of cash gifts received by the assessee from her brothers-in-law. The Assessing Officer treated the gifts as unexplained on the ground that no formal gift deeds were produced. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished confirmations, PAN details, income-tax returns, balance sheets, and bank statements of the donors, establishing their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. It further observed that the donors were persons of substantial means and regular tax filers, and the gifts were duly reflected in their books. Importantly, the Tribunal held that gifts received from relatives as defined under section 56(2)(vii) are exempt from taxation, and once the three foundational requirements under section 68 are satisfied, absence of a formal gift deed alone cannot justify an addition. Upholding the factual findings of the CIT(A), the ITAT concluded that the assessee had fully discharged her onus and that the Revenue failed to bring any contrary material on record. The appeal of the Revenue was accordingly dismissed.

Jan 26-171

11. ESOP Expenditure Allowable Despite Pending SLP When Jurisdictional High Court Decision Exists

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi v. FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (and Vice-Versa [2026] 1 TMI 1257 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 21 January 2026

The issue before the Tribunal was whether expenditure incurred on employee stock option plans (ESOPs) was allowable under section 37(1). The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that ESOP expenses were notional in nature and that the Department’s SLP against the Delhi High Court judgment in Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. was pending before the Supreme Court. The assessee demonstrated that ESOPs involved actual cash outflow, as the holding company raised invoices for discounts and matching contributions paid to employees, supported by Form 15CA and remittance records. The Tribunal held that pendency of an SLP does not dilute the binding nature of a jurisdictional High Court judgment unless stayed or reversed. Since the Delhi High Court had clearly held ESOP expenses to be allowable, and the assessee had incurred real expenditure wholly for business purposes, the ITAT upheld the order of the CIT(A) allowing the deduction. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed and the assessee’s cross-objection stood allowed.

Jan 26-172

12. Protective Income-tax Assessment Invalid When Black Money Act Proceedings Are Pending

DCIT, Delhi v. Ravi Bharadwaj[2026] 1 TMI 1251 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 21 January 2026

The Revenue challenged deletion of protective additions made under the Income-tax Act in respect of alleged undisclosed foreign bank accounts linked to a BVI company, while substantive proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act were still pending. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer initiated income-tax proceedings on a protective basis before completion of substantive assessment under the Black Money Act, relying on information obtained from foreign authorities and public databases rather than incriminating material found during search. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell, the ITAT held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during search, additions under section 153A could not be sustained. It further held that protective assessments cannot precede substantive assessments, and parallel proceedings without jurisdictional foundation are impermissible. Since Black Money Act proceedings were still pending, the Tribunal found the income-tax protective additions to be premature and without legal basis. Upholding the CIT(A)’s order, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeals.

Jan 26-173

13. Final Assessment Orders Quashed as Time-Barred Under Combined Reading of Sections 144C and 153

Denso India Pvt. Ltd. (earlier Denso India Ltd.) v. JCIT & Ors.[2026] 1 TMI 1480 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 23 January 2026

In this batch of appeals, the assessees challenged the validity of final assessment orders passed under section 144C(13) on the ground that they were barred by limitation. The Revenue contended that section 144C is a self-contained code and that limitation must be computed only with reference to timelines prescribed therein, independent of section 153. The Tribunal rejected this argument, holding that sections 144C and 153 are inter-dependent and mutually inclusive, as both operate in the context of transfer pricing assessments under section 92CA. Relying on the Madras High Court decision in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that the overall limitation prescribed under section 153 continues to govern even where the DRP mechanism under section 144C is invoked. On examining the undisputed chronology of dates, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders in all cases were passed beyond the permissible period of limitation. Objections of the Revenue seeking deferment of adjudication due to pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court were rejected. Consequently, the final assessment orders were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.

Jan 26-174

14. Disallowance of Director’s Remuneration Under Section 40A(2)(b) Set Aside as Unwarranted

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad v. Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.[2026] 1 TMI 1310 (ITAT Ahmedabad), decided on 16 January 2026

The Revenue appealed against deletion of disallowance made under section 40A(2)(b) on account of remuneration paid to whole-time directors, alleging that excessive salary was a device to distribute profits in lieu of dividends. The Assessing Officer compared the directors’ remuneration with that of other senior employees and concluded that payments were unreasonable. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), noting that both directors were full-time working directors with professional qualifications, decades of experience, and active involvement in management and business operations. It observed that remuneration was commensurate with their responsibilities, business growth, and profitability, and was approved through proper corporate processes. The Tribunal further held that mere absence of dividend declaration does not automatically establish tax avoidance, and that section 40A(2)(b) requires objective proof of unreasonableness, which was absent. It also noted that the Revenue had not demonstrated any loss of tax to the exchequer. Accordingly, the deletion of disallowance was upheld and the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

Jan 26-175

15. Rental and Allied Receipts from IT Park Held to Be Business Income

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida v. Advant IT Park Pvt. Ltd.[2026] 1 TMI 1373 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 22 January 2026

The issue before the Tribunal was whether income earned from leasing space, providing amenities, and maintenance services in an IT Park should be assessed as business income or split under the heads “house property” and “other sources.” The Assessing Officer treated lease rent as house property income and other receipts as income from other sources. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee was engaged in a systematic and organised business of developing, operating, and maintaining an IT Park, in line with its objects. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. and Karanpura Development Co. Ltd., the Tribunal held that the decisive factor is the nature of activity and commercial exploitation of property, not mere ownership. It also applied the principle of consistency, noting that in earlier and subsequent years, similar income had been accepted as business income. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.

Jan 26-176

16. Assessee Entitled to Raise Fresh Claims in Abated Assessments Under Section 153C

Dharamvir Khosla v. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi[2026] 1 TMI 1314 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 21 January 2026

The Tribunal considered whether an assessee could raise fresh claims in assessments completed under section 153C for abated years. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals as infructuous, holding that no additions were made in the assessment order. The Tribunal held that once a return is filed in response to a notice under section 153C, it substitutes the original return filed under section 139, and all rights available under a regular return revive. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that in abated assessments, the assessee is entitled to raise new or additional claims, including claims relating to depreciation and TDS credit. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in treating the appeals as infructuous without examining the merits of such claims. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, and the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

Jan 26-177

17. Share Capital Addition Under Section 68 Deleted in Absence of Defects in Evidence

Divya Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata[2026] 1 TMI 1193 (ITAT Kolkata), decided on 20 January 2026

The assessee challenged addition under section 68 in respect of share capital and premium received from three subscribers. The Assessing Officer treated the amounts as unexplained solely on the ground that the subscribers did not appear in response to summons and allegedly had low income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished complete documentary evidence including PAN, confirmations, bank statements, and audited accounts of the subscribers. It held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are established, mere non-appearance of subscribers cannot justify addition. The Tribunal further deleted ad-hoc disallowances of employee benefit and other expenses, holding that increases in expenditure were matched by growth in turnover and that no disallowance can be made on presumptions. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed in full.

Jan 26-178

18. Final Assessment Set Aside Where DRP Objections Were Ignored Due to Procedural Lapse

Express Freight Consortium v. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department & Ors.
[2026] 1 TMI 1207 (Delhi High Court), decided on 16 January 2026

The petitioner challenged the final assessment order and demand notice issued under section 144C on the ground that its objections filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) were ignored, resulting in denial of natural justice. After receipt of the draft assessment order dated 06.11.2025, the petitioner filed objections before the DRP within the prescribed time but failed to forward a copy to the Assessing Officer as required under section 144C(2)(b), under a bona fide belief that the faceless system would automatically transmit the objections. The Assessing Officer, presuming that no objections were filed, proceeded to pass the final assessment order under section 144C(4). The Delhi High Court held that although there was a technical lapse on the part of the petitioner in not forwarding the objections, such lapse could not justify drastic consequences such as raising a demand without DRP consideration. Emphasising the purpose of section 144C as a safeguard of natural justice, particularly in a faceless regime, the Court held that the assessment ought to have been kept in abeyance. The impugned final order and demand were set aside, restoring the petitioner’s right to have its objections adjudicated by the DRP.

Jan 26-179

19 Faceless Assessment Quashed for One-Day Hearing and Unauthorised Intervention by Jurisdictional AO

Gryphon Ceramics Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
[2026] 1 TMI 1384 (Gujarat High Court), decided on 20 January 2026

The petitioner assailed an assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with sections 260 and 144B after remand by the High Court, contending that the proceedings again violated principles of natural justice. Despite explicit directions to grant a meaningful hearing within twelve weeks, the faceless assessment process was disrupted by intervention of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who issued notices and conducted proceedings without authority. Subsequently, the faceless Assessing Officer granted the petitioner only one day to respond to a show-cause notice involving voluminous material exceeding 2,200 pages. The Gujarat High Court held that such a truncated opportunity rendered the hearing illusory and defeated the very purpose of remand. It further held that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer had no authority to intervene once the matter stood assigned to the faceless unit. Noting repeated disregard of judicial directions and procedural safeguards, the Court refused to remand the matter again and quashed the impugned assessment order in entirety, holding it to be unsustainable in law.

Jan 26-180

20. TDS Credit Cannot Be Denied for Technical Lapse When Tax Stands Paid

Hasbro SA, Switzerland v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Delhi
[2026] 1 TMI 1256 (ITAT Delhi), decided on 21 January 2026

The assessee, a non-resident company, challenged denial of TDS credit amounting to ₹21.14 lakh on royalty income offered to tax for AY 2020-21, on the ground that relevant supporting documents were not furnished during assessment or first appellate proceedings. The Tribunal noted that tax had in fact been deducted and deposited by the Indian payer and that the assessee’s failure to produce certain invoices and financial statements was due to a bona fide misconception regarding the relevant assessment year. Holding that no mala fides or revenue loss was demonstrated, the ITAT observed that technical lapses should not override substantive justice, particularly when lawful tax has already reached the exchequer. Exercising powers under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer with directions to verify the claim and allow TDS credit in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Purposive and Mischief Rule Maxims in Statutory Interpretation: Concepts, Scope, and Applications (Legal Essay)

Introduction: Why “Purpose” Matters in Law

Statutory interpretation is not an exercise in grammar alone. Courts are constantly called upon to decide what legal words mean in real-world situations—often where the language is broad, the facts are novel, or the legislation was drafted before modern complexities emerged. In such cases, strict literalism may defeat the legislature’s intention, produce harsh outcomes, or permit clever evasion. That is why interpretive techniques evolved that look beyond bare text to the reason, purpose, and problem that the statute sought to address.

The group of maxims under the heading Purposive and Mischief Rule expresses a common judicial instinct: law is a rational instrument aimed at practical governance. When the “why” is clear, the “how” of interpretation becomes disciplined. These maxims also reflect constitutional values—rule of law, coherence, fairness, and avoidance of irrationality.

This essay explains four interrelated principles:

1. Ratio legis—the reason of the law;

2. Heydon’s Mischief Rule—suppressing the mischief and advancing the remedy;

3. Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex—when the reason for law ceases, law ceases;

4. Interpretatio…ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum—interpretation must avoid inconvenience and absurdity.

Together, they equip courts to give statutes meaningful effect, prevent defeat of legislative design, and align interpretation with rational governance.

I. Purposive and Mischief Rule: Core Idea and Constitutional Relevance

1. What is “Purposive Interpretation”?

Purposive interpretation means construing statutory language in a manner that best advances the legislative purpose. The “purpose” may be explicit in a preamble, statement of objects and reasons, headings, scheme, context, or implied from the mischief the statute targets. Courts use this approach especially when:

• there is ambiguity in the text;

• literal meaning defeats legislative intent;

• a provision is remedial or beneficial;

• the statute addresses a social or economic mischief (e.g., evasion, exploitation, fraud);

• technological or societal changes create new situations not explicitly anticipated.

Purposive interpretation is not a license to rewrite statutes. It is interpretation anchored in text, context, and legislative design.

2. What is the “Mischief Rule”?

The mischief rule is an early structured form of purposive interpretation. It asks: what defect or mischief existed in the law before the statute? What remedy did Parliament provide? Interpretation should suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

3. Why does it matter in modern law?

Modern statutes—tax, environment, competition, insolvency, welfare, criminal justice—often contain broad standards, deeming provisions, anti-avoidance clauses, or regulatory frameworks. Courts must interpret them in a way that makes them effective. If interpretation becomes a purely literal exercise, statutory schemes collapse under loopholes.

Further, in constitutional democracies, courts interpret statutes consistently with constitutional values: equality, fairness, reasonableness, and avoidance of arbitrariness. Purpose-based maxims help achieve coherent and workable outcomes.

II. Ratio legis – “The reason of the law”

1. Meaning and Concept

Ratio legis literally means the reason or rationale of the law—the principle that explains why the rule exists. It is closely related to ratio decidendi (reason of a judgment), but here it concerns the statute’s rationale.

In interpretive terms, ratio legis performs two functions:

• It helps identify the legislative purpose underlying a provision.

• It helps decide how to apply the provision in borderline or novel cases.

The maxim reflects the belief that laws are not arbitrary; they are enacted to achieve certain objectives. The interpreter must search for this objective, especially where language admits more than one meaning.

2. Scope: Where Ratio Legis Operates

Ratio legis is relevant in three common situations:

(a) Ambiguity and Competing Meanings
When two interpretations are grammatically plausible, courts prefer the meaning that better aligns with the statute’s rationale.

(b) Filling Gaps Consistently with Legislative Design
Where the statute is silent on a practical detail, courts may interpret related provisions to avoid defeating the statute’s reason.

(c) Avoiding Evasion
Where parties exploit literal wording to avoid application, courts use the statute’s rationale to prevent circumvention—especially in welfare, consumer, anti-corruption, and tax regimes.

3. Applications: Examples Across Legal Domains

(a) Beneficial Legislation
In labour welfare statutes—minimum wages, social security, workplace safety—the reason is protection of weaker parties. Interpretation generally leans toward protecting the beneficiary, provided text permits.

(b) Taxation and Anti-Avoidance
Tax statutes can be strict, yet many provisions are remedial or anti-abuse. For example, exemptions may be interpreted liberally once eligibility is clear (beneficial purpose), while anti-evasion provisions are construed to prevent misuse (remedial/anti-mischief purpose). Ratio legis guides courts to avoid interpretations that allow artificial avoidance.

(c) Criminal Law
In criminal statutes, ratio legis cannot expand offences beyond clear text due to legality principles. Yet, even here, purpose helps interpret ambiguous terms, determine legislative intent, and resolve conflicts.

4. Limits: Ratio Legis Cannot Override Clear Words

A key boundary is that ratio legis cannot be used to contradict plain statutory language. Courts may interpret, but not legislate. The reason of law informs meaning within the permissible semantic range of the words. Where text is unequivocal, the remedy lies in legislative amendment, not judicial reconstruction.

5. Practical Value

Ratio legis is the bridge between legal text and legal function. It reduces mechanical literalism, helps consistency, and makes statutes work in the world they regulate.

III. Heydon’s Mischief Rule – “Suppressing the mischief and advancing the remedy”

1. Origin and Classical Formulation

The mischief rule is traditionally traced to Heydon’s Case (1584). It proposes a structured inquiry:

1. What was the common law before the statute?

2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?

3. What remedy did the legislature appoint?

4. What is the true reason of the remedy?

The interpretation should suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

2. Conceptual Significance

This rule reflects a practical view of lawmaking: statutes are enacted to fix problems. The rule focuses not merely on legislative intention in the abstract, but on a concrete social defect.

Importantly, the mischief rule often does two things simultaneously:

• expands coverage to prevent evasion and defeat of purpose;

• limits coverage where an overly literal reading would sweep in cases not part of the mischief.

3. Scope and Best-Fit Scenarios

The mischief rule is especially useful for:

(a) Remedial Statutes
Where the statute seeks to cure a defect (e.g., consumer protection, anti-dowry laws, anti-discrimination measures), the mischief rule gives it effective operation.

(b) Anti-Avoidance and Regulatory Schemes
Where the mischief is avoidance (tax evasion, benami holding, money laundering), literal loopholes can defeat law. Mischief rule helps interpret broadly within text bounds.

(c) Transitional or Reform Laws
Where new laws are enacted to improve older frameworks, mischief inquiry clarifies why changes were made, guiding interpretation.

4. Applications: Illustrative Scenarios

(a) Preventing Loopholes in Compliance Laws
Suppose a statute requires “reporting of transactions above X” to prevent laundering. If parties split transactions to stay under threshold, a strict reading may permit evasion. Mischief rule supports interpretation that treats artificially split transactions as one, if the statute’s scheme implies aggregation.

(b) Interpreting “In Relation To” and “For the Purpose Of”
Broad connectors like “in relation to” are common. Mischief analysis prevents overly narrow interpretation that allows avoidance.

(c) Social Welfare Statutes
If the mischief is exploitation of workers through “contractual labels,” the court may look at substance over form and treat sham contracts as employment relationships—advancing the remedy.

5. Proof of Mischief: How Courts Identify It

Courts identify mischief through:

• preambles and objects clauses;

• legislative history (where permitted);

• context and scheme;

• prior law and judicial decisions showing defects;

• social background and policy goals.

6. Limits: Judicial Restraint and Rule of Law

Even the mischief rule cannot invent new obligations not anchored in text. It is a method of choosing meaning where text allows. It cannot be used to impose penalties by implication, enlarge criminal liability beyond clarity, or defeat explicit statutory carve-outs.

7. Contemporary Mischief Rule and Purposive Interpretation

Modern purposive interpretation can be seen as the mischief rule’s evolution. Mischief rule focuses on defect-remedy logic; purposive interpretation focuses on broader statutory objectives. Both share the same moral: interpret for effectiveness, not for sabotage by technicality.

IV. Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex – “When the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases”

1. Meaning and Theoretical Basis

This maxim suggests that the binding force of a rule is tied to its rationale; if the rationale disappears, the rule should not apply. It expresses an important legal intuition: rules exist to serve purposes, not to become irrational burdens.

However, in statutory law, this maxim operates cautiously because courts cannot repeal statutes. A statute remains in force until amended or repealed. Therefore, the maxim is not a tool to invalidate law; it is an interpretive principle for limiting application where the rationale plainly no longer exists within the statute’s intended scope.

2. Scope: How It Operates in Practice

In modern judicial reasoning, the maxim appears in these forms:

(a) Limiting Application to Purpose-Related Cases
A provision may have been enacted to address a specific condition. If that condition is absent, applying the rule mechanically may be unjustified. Courts may construe the rule as not covering such cases.

(b) Interpreting Exceptions and Exemptions
Where an exception exists to remove hardship or address a special circumstance, if that circumstance no longer exists, the exception should not be stretched.

(c) “Sunset logic” without a formal sunset clause
Even where statute has no sunset clause, courts sometimes interpret special provisions narrowly to fit the original rationale.

3. Examples of Rational-Cessation Reasoning

(a) Emergency or War-time Provisions
Laws passed to regulate emergencies may be interpreted as confined to conditions of emergency. If applied outside those conditions, the rationale collapses. Courts may restrict their scope accordingly.

(b) Temporary Incentives or Special Relaxations
If a statutory benefit is intended to encourage a particular activity during a particular developmental stage, courts may interpret it consistent with that aim rather than allowing it as a perpetual loophole unrelated to the objective.

(c) Obsolete Technology or Changed Social Conditions
Sometimes statutory words remain but the context changes radically. Courts may interpret in a way that preserves rationale rather than enforcing obsolete assumptions.

4. Limits: Statutory Supremacy and Separation of Powers

This maxim must not be misused to claim that courts can disregard statutes because they appear outdated. Only the legislature can repeal or amend. Courts can interpret and adapt within permissible bounds, but cannot declare that law “ceases” merely because its rationale seems less relevant today. The maxim is therefore a caution against purposeless application, not a judicial veto.

5. A Balanced View

Used carefully, this maxim prevents interpretation from becoming mechanical and irrational. It encourages contextual application. Misused, it becomes judicial overreach. The correct approach is restrained: apply the maxim to interpretation, not invalidation.

V. Interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper fienda est, ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum – “Interpretation must avoid absurdity”

1. Meaning

This maxim embodies the golden rule idea: where the literal meaning produces absurdity, inconvenience, or irrational outcomes, courts may adopt a construction that avoids such results, provided the alternative is consistent with the text.

Absurdity here is not “harshness” alone. It is an outcome that:

• defeats the statute’s obvious purpose;

• produces contradiction within the statute;

• leads to impossibility or unworkability;

• causes arbitrary or nonsensical consequences that a reasonable legislature could not intend.

2. Scope: When Absurdity-Avoidance is Invoked

Courts invoke this maxim typically when:

(a) Text is ambiguous
Two plausible meanings exist. Choose the one avoiding absurdity.

(b) Literal reading creates internal contradiction
If one section contradicts another under literal reading, harmonizing construction is preferred.

(c) Literal reading defeats the statute’s object
A law designed to regulate behaviour should not be interpreted to make compliance impossible or meaningless.

(d) Drafting errors or obvious omissions
Where language is plainly defective, courts sometimes correct minor drafting mistakes to preserve sense—though this is done cautiously.

3. Applications: Illustrative Scenarios

(a) Procedural Dead-Ends
Suppose a statute requires an appeal to be filed within a time period, but another section makes the necessary certified copy available only later. A literal reading could make appeals impossible. Courts avoid this absurdity by interpreting limitation appropriately.

(b) Unintended Overbreadth
If a provision intended to regulate “commercial vehicles” is interpreted literally to include ambulances or disaster-response vehicles where statute elsewhere provides special treatment, courts avoid absurd outcomes by reading in harmony with purpose and scheme.

(c) Penal Consequences for Innocent Technicalities
Where a regulatory statute’s object is compliance rather than punishment, courts avoid constructions that create penal outcomes for minor, non-substantive errors—unless the statute clearly mandates strict liability.

4. Limits: Courts Cannot Recreate Statutes

Absurdity-avoidance is not judicial legislation. Courts cannot simply substitute what they think is desirable. The correction must be anchored to the statutory scheme and the plausible meaning of words. If the statute clearly compels an unpleasant result, courts may still have to apply it, leaving reform to legislature.

5. Relationship with Purposive Interpretation

Avoiding absurdity is often the practical effect of purposive interpretation. Purpose tells us what the law is trying to do; absurdity analysis tells us what interpretation would sabotage that attempt.

VI. Interrelationship of the Four Maxims: A Unified Interpretive Toolkit

These maxims are distinct, but mutually reinforcing:

1. Ratio legis identifies the rationale: why the rule exists.

2. Mischief rule identifies the defect-remedy structure: what problem the statute cures.

3. Cessante ratione warns against purposeless application: don’t extend a rule where its justification vanishes, within interpretive limits.

4. Avoiding absurdity ensures functional coherence: choose meanings that keep law workable and rational.

In practice, courts often use them together:

• Determine purpose (ratio legis);

• Identify mischief and remedy (Heydon);

• Apply provision to facts in a way that fits rationale (cessante ratione logic);

• Confirm the interpretation avoids contradiction and absurdity.

VII. Practical Framework for Using These Maxims in Legal Writing (For Counsel and Students)

When drafting arguments or judicial reasoning, an effective structure is:

1. Text and context first: quote provision; identify key phrases; refer to scheme.

2. Identify purpose (ratio legis): show what statute aims to achieve.

3. Explain mischief: demonstrate defect in prior law and how present provision remedies it.

4. Apply to facts: show how your reading suppresses mischief and advances remedy.

5. Absurdity check: demonstrate that the opposite interpretation creates unworkable/irrational outcomes.

6. Limit and restraint: show that interpretation remains faithful to text, not rewriting.

This approach produces arguments that are principled, persuasive, and institutionally respectful.

VIII. Indian Supreme Court’s Interpretive Approach: Textualism versus Purposive Trends

1. A Distinct Indian Trajectory

The Indian Supreme Court’s approach to statutory interpretation reflects a dynamic balance between textual fidelity and purposive pragmatism. Unlike jurisdictions that have oscillated sharply between strict textualism and expansive purposivism, Indian constitutional and statutory interpretation has evolved as a context-sensitive synthesis. The Court has consistently recognised that while the text of the statute is the starting point, interpretation cannot be divorced from purpose, constitutional values, and social realities.

This balance becomes particularly visible in the Court’s handling of beneficial legislation, fiscal statutes, regulatory laws, and constitutional provisions, where rigid literalism often risks frustrating legislative intent.

2. Early Phase: Predominance of Literal and Textual Interpretation

In the early decades after independence, Indian courts largely adhered to the literal rule, influenced by English common law traditions. The prevailing judicial philosophy was that courts must declare the law, not make it, and that statutory words should be given their plain meaning.

However, even during this phase, the Supreme Court acknowledged that literal interpretation could not be applied mechanically where it led to manifest injustice or absurdity. The seeds of purposive interpretation were already present, particularly in cases involving welfare statutes.

3. Gradual Shift towards Purposive Interpretation

From the 1970s onwards, the Supreme Court increasingly embraced purposive and mischief-oriented interpretation, especially in social justice, labour, and economic regulation cases. The Court recognised that Indian legislation often addresses deep-rooted structural inequalities and regulatory gaps, which cannot be effectively cured through narrow textualism.

Key features of this shift include:

• Greater reliance on Statement of Objects and Reasons;

• Emphasis on the scheme and context of the Act;

• Interpretation aligned with constitutional goals such as equality, fairness, and reasonableness.

This phase marked a clear acceptance of Heydon’s Mischief Rule as a legitimate interpretive aid in Indian jurisprudence.

4. Textualism in Fiscal and Penal Statutes: A Qualified Rule

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that taxing statutes must be construed strictly and that there is no equity in tax. Similarly, in criminal law, the principle of legality requires clear legislative mandate.

However, modern Indian jurisprudence demonstrates that strict construction does not mean blind literalism. Even in fiscal statutes, the Court distinguishes between:

• Charging provisions, which require strict interpretation; and

• Exemption, deduction, incentive, and remedial provisions, which are often interpreted liberally once eligibility is established, in line with their purpose.

Thus, purposive interpretation has entered fiscal law not as a replacement for textualism, but as its contextual complement.

5. Constitutional Supremacy and Purposive Interpretation

Indian statutory interpretation is deeply influenced by the Constitution as a living document. The Supreme Court frequently interprets statutes in a manner that:

• avoids constitutional invalidity;

• aligns subordinate legislation with fundamental rights;

• furthers Directive Principles where text permits.

This constitutional backdrop naturally favours purposive interpretation, since statutes are presumed to be enacted in furtherance of constitutional values unless clearly stated otherwise.

6. Avoidance of Absurdity and Unworkability: A Consistent Judicial Theme

Across decades, the Supreme Court has consistently applied the principle that interpretation leading to absurd, impractical, or anomalous results must be avoided. This aligns directly with the maxim interpretatio talis…ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum.

The Court has clarified that:

• Legislatures are presumed to be reasonable and rational;

• Courts must avoid constructions that make statutory provisions unworkable, self-defeating, or internally contradictory;

• Interpretation must preserve the functional integrity of the statute.

This reasoning is frequently combined with purposive analysis, reinforcing the practical dimension of statutory interpretation.

7. Cessante Ratione in Indian Jurisprudence: A Restrained Usage

The Supreme Court has shown institutional restraint in applying the maxim cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex. While acknowledging that laws are purposive instruments, the Court has been careful to reiterate that:

• Statutes do not lapse merely because their original rationale appears diluted;

• Only interpretation, not validity, can be influenced by changes in social or economic context;

• Legislative supremacy must be respected.

Accordingly, Indian courts use this principle primarily to confine over-expansive interpretations, not to negate statutory provisions.

8. Contemporary Position: Harmonised Interpretive Method

The present interpretive position of the Indian Supreme Court can be summarised as follows:

1. Text is the starting point, but not always the end point.

2. Purpose, mischief, and scheme are legitimate and often decisive aids.

3. Absurdity, injustice, and unworkability are strong indicators of incorrect interpretation.

4. Judicial restraint is maintained to avoid rewriting statutes.

5. Constitutional values act as an interpretive compass.

This harmonised method allows the Court to remain faithful to legislative intent while ensuring that law remains effective, rational, and just.

9. Relevance to the Discussed Maxims

The Indian Supreme Court’s interpretive approach demonstrates that the four maxims discussed earlier are not abstract Latin formulations, but living tools of adjudication:

• Ratio legis anchors interpretation in legislative rationale.

• Heydon’s Mischief Rule ensures statutory remedies are not defeated by technicalities.

• Cessante ratione legis prevents purposeless extension of legal rules.

• Avoidance of absurdity safeguards coherence and practical governance.

Together, they form the intellectual foundation of purposive interpretation in Indian law.

Conclusion: Interpretation as Rational Governance

The law is not merely a collection of sentences; it is a system designed to regulate conduct, distribute rights, and resolve disputes. The purposive and mischief-based maxims remind us that statutes should be interpreted as purposeful instruments. Ratio legis directs attention to legislative rationale. Heydon’s rule gives a structured method to cure mischief and make remedies effective. Cessante ratione legis warns against purposeless extension of rules beyond their justification, while respecting legislative supremacy. The absurdity-avoidance maxim ensures that interpretation yields workable and coherent outcomes consistent with a rational legislature.

Indian statutory interpretation reflects a constitutional pragmatism—neither rigid textualism nor unchecked judicial creativity. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence shows a mature recognition that law must work, and that interpretation is a means of ensuring that statutory commands achieve their intended social, economic, and constitutional objectives.

In modern statutory regimes—especially those combating avoidance, regulating complex markets, and protecting vulnerable groups—these maxims are indispensable. They prevent law from becoming a technical game and restore it to what it is meant to be: a rational, purposive framework for public justice.

Above article can also be viewed at

https://1drv.ms/b/c/0f527a60e6f7d291/IQDByW9uMdCZS7PHOcu_JZfXAdzDz5sg4XmNc4hcSPMA2Tg?e=JgQabI

Section 365

3.—Appeals to High Court

365. (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

(2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or an assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be—

(a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the assessee or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner;

(b) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved.

(3) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to in sub-section (2)(a), if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not filing the same within the said period.

(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.

(5) The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question.

(6) The provisions of sub-section (5) shall not take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.

(7) The High Court shall decide the question of law so formulated and deliver such judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded and may award such cost as it deems fit.

(8) The High Court may determine any issue which the Appellate Tribunal,––

(a) has not determined; or

(b) has wrongly determined, by reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in sub-section (1).

(9) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to appeals to the High Court shall, as far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under this section.

(10) Where the High Court delivers a judgment in an appeal filed before it under this section, effect shall be given to such order by the Assessing Officer, on the basis of a certified copy of the judgment.

Analysis of section 365

Written Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

May it please Your Honours-

(ii) SUBJECT

Written Submissions challenging the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2021–22, setting aside the assessment order u/s 143(3) on alleged issues relating to (a) deduction u/s 80G in respect of donations alleged to be CSR-linked; and (b) alleged failure to disallow interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) purportedly falling for disallowance u/s 37(1).

(iii) REFERENCE

1. Assessment Year: 2021–22

2. Return of Income filed on: 30.10.2021 declaring total income of ₹ 82,40,15,600/-

3. Assessment Order: u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.09.2023

4. Revisionary Order: u/s 263 dated 20.03.2025 passed by Ld. PCIT, [City–__]

5. Appeal before ITAT: Against order u/s 263, in terms of Section 253(1)(c)

(iv) ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE

Whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld. PCIT was justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 and setting aside the assessment order on the alleged grounds that:

A. The Assessing Officer wrongly allowed deduction u/s 80G on donations which were purportedly CSR expenditure, without “proper enquiry”; and

B. The Assessing Officer failed to disallow interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) u/s 37(1), thereby rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

The assessee submits that neither of the twin statutory conditions of section 263 is satisfied; the order is not erroneous, and in any case, is not prejudicial. The revision is based merely on a change of opinion and an attempt to conduct a roving enquiry, which is impermissible.

(v) FACTS OF THE CASE (HYPOTHETICAL)

1. The appellant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of packaged agro-products and beverage premixes, having pan-India distribution.

2. For A.Y. 2021–22, the appellant filed its return declaring total income of ₹ 82.40 crores. The case was selected for limited scrutiny (later converted to complete scrutiny) and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B on 28.09.2023.

3. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued specific notices calling for:

   • Details of donations and deduction claimed u/s 80G, including donee registration, receipts, mode of payment, and linkage with CSR policy;

   • Details of interest/penalties, statutory liabilities, and whether any interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) was debited to P&L.

4. The appellant furnished:

   • Complete donation ledger, bank statements, 80G receipts, donee approval details, Form 10BE/acknowledgements, and management note clarifying that donation was accounted separately and the deduction u/s 80G was claimed strictly as per law;

   • Tax audit report clauses, a reconciliation statement showing that interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) was not debited to the Profit & Loss Account and was not claimed as expenditure in computation; rather, it was paid/adjusted as statutory levy and disclosed.

5. The Assessing Officer, after examination, passed the assessment order accepting the return on these issues (while making certain unrelated minor adjustments).

6. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice u/s 263 alleging that:

   • Deduction u/s 80G is not allowable as donations were “CSR-linked”, and the Assessing Officer failed to disallow it;

   • Interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) is not allowable u/s 37(1) and the AO failed to disallow it.

7. The assessee responded with detailed written submissions, enclosing the assessment questionnaire, replies filed, and the evidences already examined.

8. However, the Ld. PCIT passed the impugned order u/s 263 setting aside the assessment order on both issues, directing the AO to frame a fresh assessment.

Hence, this appeal.

(vi) REASONS OF DECISION BY THE CIT (u/s 263)

The Ld. PCIT, in substance, held:

1. On Section 80G issue: Since the donations were made in the CSR period and the company had CSR obligations, the deduction was “prima facie” not allowable and the AO failed to apply proper verification. Therefore, assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial.

2. On Section 201(1A)/206C(7) interest: Such interest is compensatory/penal in nature and not allowable u/s 37(1). The AO did not make disallowance; hence order is erroneous and prejudicial.

3. The Ld. PCIT concluded that “adequate enquiry” was not made and set aside the assessment.

(vii) GROUNDS OF APPEAL (ILLUSTRATIVE DRAFT)

1. The Ld. PCIT erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 without satisfying the mandatory twin conditions of “erroneous” and “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”.

2. The Ld. PCIT erred in holding the assessment order erroneous, despite the AO having made specific enquiries and having examined the relevant details regarding deduction u/s 80G and the nature of interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7).

3. The Ld. PCIT failed to demonstrate any definite error in the assessment order, and the revision is a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible.

4. The Ld. PCIT erred in directing disallowance of interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) even though such interest was not claimed as an expenditure in the return/computation.

5. The Ld. PCIT erred in reading additional restrictions into section 80G beyond those expressly provided in section 80G(2)(a)(iiihk)/(iiihl) relating to CSR exclusion.

6. The impugned order is liable to be quashed.

(ix) SUBMISSIONS ON FACTS

A. The AO made specific enquiry on both issues; the record demonstrates application of mind

1. The revision order proceeds on an assumption that the AO did not examine the issues. This is factually incorrect. The assessment record shows:

   • A detailed notice u/s 142(1) calling for donation details and 80G evidence;

   • The assessee’s reply enclosing donation receipts, donee approvals, payment proofs, CSR committee note, and 80G claim computation;

   • A specific query regarding statutory interest, penalties and disallowable expenditure;

   • Assessee’s written submission that interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) was not claimed in P&L nor in computation, supported by ledger extracts and tax audit report reconciliation.

2. Where the AO has made enquiry, received replies and accepted the explanation, the PCIT cannot reopen the assessment merely because he believes a “better” enquiry should have been made. This is precisely the principle affirmed in Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd. v. PCIT [2026] 182 taxmann.com 232 (Ahd–Trib.) where revision was quashed because the AO had examined the issues and the PCIT failed to show any specific error.

B. Section 80G donation: the PCIT has not shown what is “erroneous” in the AO’s view

1. The donation was made by account payee banking channel to an institution holding valid 80G approval. The assessee claimed deduction strictly as per the statute.

2. The PCIT’s reasoning is generic: “CSR-linked donation cannot be allowed”. However, the Act itself provides specific CSR-related exclusions only for certain funds under section 80G—namely under section 80G(2)(a)(iiihk) (Swachh Bharat Kosh) and section 80G(2)(a)(iiihl) (Clean Ganga Fund) by excluding sums spent pursuant to CSR obligations.

3. Therefore, beyond these two expressly carved-out statutory exclusions, no further CSR-based disallowance can be introduced through interpretation. The PCIT has not demonstrated that the appellant’s donation falls under those restricted categories, nor that the AO’s conclusion violates the statute.

4. The AO having examined the donation and allowed deduction, the PCIT’s contrary approach is at best a different opinion, not an “error” within section 263.

C. Interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7): no disallowance can arise if no claim exists

1. The assessee never claimed this interest as an expense in the return. It was not debited to profit and loss account; it was not part of the computation claimed as deduction.

2. Hence, the premise of the PCIT—“AO failed to disallow”—collapses. There is nothing to disallow. This was also the decisive factual finding in Gujarat Tea Processors (supra): if interest u/s 201(1A) is not claimed, assessment cannot be held erroneous/prejudicial for not disallowing it.

3. Section 263 cannot be used to direct a disallowance in vacuum, detached from the computation of income. A non-existent claim cannot be disallowed, and its non-disallowance cannot cause prejudice.

(x) SUBMISSIONS ON LAW

A. Twin conditions under Section 263 are mandatory and cumulative

1. It is settled that for invoking section 263, the PCIT must establish that the assessment order is:

(i) erroneous, and
(ii) prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

2. If either condition fails, revision fails. In the present case, both fail:

   • The order is not erroneous because the AO examined the issues and adopted a legally sustainable view;

   • The order is not prejudicial because (a) 80G restrictions are expressly codified and the AO’s view aligns with the statute; and (b) interest was not claimed, hence no tax prejudice arises.

B. Distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”

1. Jurisdiction u/s 263 is attracted in cases of lack of enquiry leading to an unsustainable order. But where there is enquiry and application of mind, the PCIT cannot invoke 263 merely because he considers enquiry inadequate.

2. The assessment record demonstrates enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order amounts to substitution of the PCIT’s opinion for the AO’s opinion, which is impermissible.

C. Section 80G and CSR: express statutory restriction means no implied restriction

1. The legislature, by amending section 80G, inserted explicit CSR exclusion only for two funds: Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund. This indicates that CSR exclusion is not a general bar under section 80G, except where specifically enacted.

2. The principle is simple: where the statute expressly provides for certain exclusions, other exclusions cannot be implied. Any attempt to create a new disallowance through section 263 would be contrary to the scheme of section 80G.

D. Interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7): revision cannot be based on a non-claim

1. When an expense is not claimed, there is no allowance; and consequently no “error causing prejudice”.

2. Section 263 is not a supervisory power to order theoretical disallowances; it is a corrective power triggered by a demonstrated error affecting tax liability.

(xi) CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEE’S CASE

The appellant relies upon the following authorities (including those discussed in the cited Ahmedabad Tribunal judgment):

1. Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd. v. PCIT [2026] 182 taxmann.com 232 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)

   • Held revision u/s 263 invalid where AO had examined 80G donation allegedly CSR-linked and where interest u/s 201(1A) was not claimed as expense; AO’s order not erroneous/prejudicial.

2. TTEC India Customer Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 289 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)

   • Reiterates that section 263 cannot be invoked where the AO has conducted enquiry and taken a plausible view.

3. Hemani Industries Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2025] 177 taxmann.com 673 / 214 ITD 520 (Mumbai – Trib.)

   • Revision invalid where PCIT seeks to replace AO’s view without demonstrating actual error and prejudice.

4. Agilent Technologies (International) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 172 taxmann.com 858 (Delhi – Trib.)

   • Emphasizes that when AO has verified and accepted, PCIT cannot invoke section 263 merely for deeper verification.

5. Jashan Jewels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 749 / 214 ITD 112 (Mumbai – Trib.)

   • Revision not permissible for “fishing inquiries” or change of opinion.

6. Sonata Information v. CIT (ITA No. 1402 of 2024, dated 05.11.2024)

   • Reinforces the limited scope of section 263 and the need to show error + prejudice.

(Any additional binding High Court/Supreme Court precedents on section 263 may also be cited at the time of hearing, if required.)

(xii) PRAYER

In view of the facts and legal submissions made above, the appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

1. Quash and set aside the impugned revisionary order dated 20.03.2025 passed u/s 263 by the Ld. PCIT, [City–__], for A.Y. 2021–22;

2. Hold that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.09.2023 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue;

3. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(xiii) CLOSING SIGNATURES

Filed by:
For M/s. Shree Narmada Agro & Beverages Limited (Appellant)

Authorized Representative
(Name)
(Designation / Enrollment No.)
(Address)
Place: [City]
Date: [//2026]

Above file can also be viewed at

https://1drv.ms/b/c/0f527a60e6f7d291/IQCvDJV9StGHTqz1w753-2X-AaL33lSQKEXQlmY0IWOV2lY?e=sYpMFs

Cases uploaded in January 2026

Jan 26-135

Validity of Section 153C Proceedings — Absence of Proper Satisfaction Note

Paras Chandreshbhai Koticha v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2) [2026] 1 TMI 417 (Gujarat High Court)

The petitioner challenged the validity of notice issued under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act for AY 2015-16 on the ground that the mandatory satisfaction note was neither properly recorded nor timely supplied. The case arose from a search conducted in the case of a third party, pursuant to which documents allegedly belonging to the petitioner were stated to have been found. However, the satisfaction note recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer did not bear any date and was admittedly supplied to the petitioner only on 31.05.2024, i.e., more than two years after issuance of the impugned notice dated 24.06.2022. The core issue before the Court was whether such an undated and belatedly furnished satisfaction note could sustain proceedings under Section 153C. The Gujarat High Court held that recording of a proper satisfaction note by the jurisdictional AO is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement and must precede issuance of notice under Section 153C. An undated satisfaction note and its delayed communication to the assessee vitiate the entire assumption of jurisdiction. On both counts—absence of date and inordinate delay in supply—the notice was held to be legally unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 153C and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

Jan 26-136

Addition Based on Unsubstantiated Alleged Accommodation Entries — Burden on Revenue

Passion Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-II, Haryana [2026] 1 TMI 470 (ITAT Delhi)

The assessee company was subjected to assessment proceedings wherein additions were made on account of alleged accommodation entries treated as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer relied primarily on third-party statements and investigation wing reports without providing the assessee an opportunity of cross-examination or confronting it with incriminating material. The assessee contended that it had furnished complete documentary evidence including bank statements, confirmations, PAN details, and financial statements of the investors. The core issue before the Tribunal was whether additions under Section 68 could be sustained merely on the basis of general investigation reports without establishing lack of identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of transactions. The ITAT Delhi held that once the assessee discharges the initial onus by furnishing primary evidences, the burden shifts to the Revenue to rebut the same with cogent material. Reliance on untested third-party statements, without granting cross-examination, violates principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Since the Revenue failed to carry out independent verification or disprove the documentary evidence, the addition was held unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned additions were deleted.

Jan 26-137 Scope of Interference with ITAT Findings — No Substantial Question of Law

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) v. Mukul Kakar
[2026] 1 TMI 418 (Supreme Court) (Order)

The Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment of the High Court which had upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal granting relief to the assessee in search-related proceedings. The dispute pertained to additions made based on seized material, where the Tribunal had recorded a factual finding that the additions were not supported by incriminating evidence relatable to the assessment years in question. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the findings of fact recorded by the ITAT, as affirmed by the High Court, warranted interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority under the Act and that no perversity or substantial question of law was demonstrated by the Revenue. It was held that re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible in SLP jurisdiction unless a grave miscarriage of justice is shown. Finding no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, thereby affirming the relief granted to the assessee.

Jan 26-138

Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal Proceedings — Abuse of Process

R.V. Venkateshan v. Sanjay @ Sanjay Sait & Ors. [2026] 1 TMI 694 (Madras High Court)

The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him alleging offences arising out of a financial transaction. The dispute stemmed from a commercial arrangement between the parties, where allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust were subsequently raised. The core issue before the Madras High Court was whether the ingredients of criminal offences were made out or whether the proceedings were an attempt to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. Upon examination of the complaint and materials on record, the Court found that the dispute essentially related to contractual obligations and recovery of money. There was no prima facie evidence of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, which is a sine qua non for offences of cheating. The Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be used as a tool for arm-twisting or to settle civil scores. Holding that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the Madras High Court quashed the impugned criminal proceedings.

Jan 26-139

Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 — Requirement of Twin Conditions Rama Industries Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-3 & Anr.
[2026] 1 TMI 624 (Bombay High Court)

The assessee challenged the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, wherein the Principal Commissioner sought to revise a completed assessment on the ground that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revision was initiated alleging inadequate inquiry by the Assessing Officer on certain expenditure claims. The core issue before the Bombay High Court was whether Section 263 could be invoked merely because the Commissioner held a different opinion, despite the AO having conducted inquiries during assessment. The Court held that for valid assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263, both conditions—erroneous order and prejudice to Revenue—must coexist. It was observed that lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry are distinct, and where the AO has made inquiries and taken a plausible view, Section 263 cannot be invoked. The Court found that the revisionary authority failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned Section 263 order was quashed.

Jan 26-140

Sabre Marketing Nederland B.V. v. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi [2026] 1 TMI 468 – ITAT Delhi

The assessee, a Netherlands-based company, was subjected to assessment proceedings wherein the Revenue sought to tax certain receipts as income chargeable to tax in India, alleging the existence of a business connection/permanent establishment and invoking withholding tax obligations. The Assessing Officer treated the payments received by the assessee from Indian entities as taxable, contending that the activities resulted in income accrual in India. The assessee disputed the characterization, relying on the India–Netherlands DTAA and contending that it had no permanent establishment in India and that the receipts were not in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services. The Tribunal examined the contractual arrangements, the nature of activities carried out by the assessee, and the applicable treaty provisions. It held that mere marketing or auxiliary activities, without core revenue-generating functions being performed in India, do not constitute a permanent establishment. The Tribunal further held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the payments fell within the definition of royalty or FTS under the DTAA. Consequently, the income was held to be not taxable in India, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

Jan 26-141

SAIC Motor Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon [2026] 1 TMI 414 – ITAT Delhi

In this case, the assessee, a foreign automobile manufacturer, challenged the taxability of certain receipts arising from its dealings with Indian group entities. The Assessing Officer treated the income as chargeable to tax in India, alleging that the assessee had a permanent establishment through dependent agents and that the receipts constituted fees for technical services. The assessee argued that it merely supplied goods and provided limited support services from outside India and that no part of the income accrued or arose in India under the DTAA. The Tribunal analysed the functional profile, contractual terms, and extent of activities undertaken in India. It held that mere commercial coordination or support does not automatically lead to the creation of a permanent establishment unless core business operations are carried out in India. The Tribunal further held that the services rendered did not “make available” technical knowledge as required under the treaty. On these findings, the Tribunal ruled that the income was not taxable in India and set aside the additions made by the Revenue.

Jan 26-142

Sarayu Krishna Kamat v. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai [2026] 1 TMI 413 – ITAT Mumbai

The assessee challenged additions made during reassessment proceedings, contending that the reopening was based on insufficient material and amounted to a change of opinion. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment alleging escapement of income based on certain financial transactions reflected in third-party information. The assessee argued that all relevant facts were already disclosed during the original assessment and that no new tangible material existed to justify reopening. The Tribunal examined the reasons recorded and the assessment records. It held that reassessment proceedings must be founded on fresh, tangible material and cannot be sustained merely on re-appreciation of existing records. The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded did not establish a live nexus between the material relied upon and the alleged escapement of income. Accordingly, the reopening was held to be invalid in law, and the reassessment order was quashed.

Jan 26-143

Shri Moorthy Ramasubramanian v. DCIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli [2026] 1 TMI 814 – ITAT Chennai

The dispute related to additions made under section 69/69A of the Income-tax Act on account of unexplained investments and cash deposits. The Assessing Officer treated certain transactions as unexplained, placing the burden entirely on the assessee. The assessee furnished explanations supported by documentary evidence and contended that the additions were made on presumptions without proper verification. The Tribunal examined the evidentiary material and held that once the assessee discharges the initial burden by providing plausible explanations and supporting documents, the onus shifts to the Revenue to disprove the same. It found that the Assessing Officer had not conducted any independent enquiry to rebut the assessee’s explanation. The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained on suspicion or conjecture and deleted the additions.

Jan 26-144

Spectris Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-9(1), New Delhi [2026] 1 TMI 411 – ITAT Delhi

The assessee challenged disallowances made during assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer had proceeded without properly appreciating the nature of expenses and without granting adequate opportunity of hearing. The Revenue had treated certain expenditures as non-genuine or excessive, leading to additions. The Tribunal observed that the assessment order lacked a reasoned analysis and that no adverse material was confronted to the assessee. It reiterated that additions must be based on cogent evidence and that principles of natural justice require proper opportunity and reasoned findings. On these grounds, the Tribunal set aside the impugned additions and granted relief to the assessee.

Jan 26-145

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) v. Som Hari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2026] 1 TMI 623 – Delhi High Court

The Revenue challenged the order of the Tribunal which had quashed proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Income-tax Act. The High Court examined whether the mandatory jurisdictional requirement of recording a proper satisfaction note was fulfilled. It was found that the satisfaction note did not meet statutory requirements and lacked proper linkage between the seized material and the assessee. The Court held that recording of satisfaction is a condition precedent for invoking section 153C and is not a mere procedural formality. In the absence of a valid satisfaction note, the assumption of jurisdiction itself was invalid. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s order quashing the proceedings.

Jan 26-146

Adel Saini v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Faridabad (Haryana) [2026] 1 TMI 1254 – ITAT Delhi

This appeal concerned reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the basis of information alleging escapement of income, without establishing a live nexus between the material relied upon and the formation of belief. The assessee challenged the reopening on the ground that the reasons recorded were vague, mechanical, and merely based on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind. It was also contended that the mandatory procedural safeguards introduced under section 148A were not meaningfully complied with.

The Tribunal, after examining the reasons recorded and the manner in which the proceedings were initiated, held that the reassessment was unsustainable in law. It observed that mere reproduction of information received from another source, without any independent verification or analysis by the Assessing Officer, does not satisfy the statutory requirement of “reason to believe”. The Tribunal further noted that compliance with section 148A is not a ritualistic formality but a substantive safeguard meant to protect taxpayers from arbitrary reassessment. Since the reopening was founded on vague allegations and lacked cogent reasoning, the reassessment notice and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Jan 26-147

AECOM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon [2026] 1 TMI 1481 – ITAT Delhi

The dispute in this case related to transfer pricing adjustments made in respect of intra-group services received by the assessee from its associated enterprises. The Transfer Pricing Officer determined that the assessee had failed to establish the receipt of services and the commensurate benefit derived therefrom, and consequently proposed a nil arm’s length price for such services. The Assessing Officer incorporated the adjustment while completing the assessment. The assessee contended that detailed documentation, agreements, and evidence of actual services rendered had been furnished and that the TPO had exceeded his jurisdiction by questioning commercial expediency.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee demonstrates the rendition of services through contemporaneous documentation and establishes that the payments were not sham, the TPO cannot determine the arm’s length price at nil merely on subjective perceptions of benefit. It reiterated that the tax authorities cannot sit in judgment over the business or commercial wisdom of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the TPO had disregarded material evidence and adopted an impermissible approach. Accordingly, the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Jan 26-148

Ali Fazal v. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai [2026] 1 TMI 1320 – ITAT Mumbai

This appeal arose from proceedings under section 201 of the Income-tax Act, wherein the assessee was treated as an assessee in default for alleged failure to deduct tax at source on certain payments. The Assessing Officer held that the payments made by the assessee attracted TDS provisions and raised a demand for tax, interest, and penalty. The assessee argued that the payments were not in the nature specified under the relevant TDS provisions and that, in any case, the recipients had duly offered the income to tax.

The Tribunal examined the nature of payments and the contractual arrangements and held that the characterization adopted by the Assessing Officer was legally unsustainable. It further relied on settled law that where the recipient has already included the income in its return and paid due taxes, the payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default under section 201, though interest liability may be examined separately. Since the Revenue failed to rebut the evidence furnished by the assessee, the demand raised under section 201 was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Jan 26-149

Amit Bholanath Mishra v. ACIT, Circle-22(1), Mumbai [2026] 1 TMI 1122 – ITAT Mumbai

The core issue in this case related to additions made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act on account of unexplained cash credits. The Assessing Officer treated certain credits in the assessee’s bank account as unexplained, alleging failure to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The assessee contended that the amounts represented explained transactions, supported by documentary evidence, and that the Assessing Officer had ignored material placed on record.

The Tribunal held that the initial burden cast upon the assessee under section 68 stood discharged through bank statements, confirmations, and supporting documents. It observed that once the assessee furnishes prima facie evidence, the onus shifts to the Revenue to disprove the same with cogent material. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made the additions purely on suspicion without conducting proper inquiry. Consequently, the additions under section 68 were deleted and the appeal was allowed.

Jan 26-150

Anixter India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai [2026] 1 TMI 1474 – ITAT Chennai

This appeal involved disallowance of expenditure and transfer pricing adjustments in relation to payments made to associated enterprises. The Assessing Officer and TPO questioned the arm’s length nature of the transactions and made additions without adequately considering the functional profile and benchmarking analysis submitted by the assessee. The assessee challenged the action as arbitrary and contrary to settled transfer pricing principles.

The Tribunal held that the benchmarking exercise conducted by the assessee was in accordance with law and that the authorities had failed to bring any comparable material to justify the adjustments. It reiterated that transfer pricing analysis must be based on objective criteria and reliable comparables, and ad hoc adjustments are impermissible. Finding that the additions were made without proper reasoning, the Tribunal deleted the adjustments and allowed the appeal.

Jan 26-151

Ankur Chandulal Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Mumbai [2026] 1 TMI 1417 – ITAT Mumbai

The dispute in this case pertained to reopening of assessment and consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the reasons recorded did not disclose any tangible material and that the reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion. The assessee also contested the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal examined the reasons recorded and held that the reopening was initiated without any new or tangible material coming to the possession of the Assessing Officer. It observed that reassessment proceedings cannot be used as a tool to review or re-examine concluded matters. Since the jurisdictional requirement for reopening was not satisfied, the Tribunal held the reassessment to be invalid. Accordingly, the notice issued under section 148 and all consequential proceedings were quashed, rendering the additions infructuous.

Jan 26-152

Anshul Speciality Molecules Private Limited v. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai [2026] 1 TMI 1321 (ITAT Mumbai)

The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing specialty chemicals, acquired a running manufacturing unit from an unrelated party through a slump sale for a consolidated consideration. The excess of purchase consideration over the net identifiable assets was recognised as goodwill, on which depreciation was claimed under section 32(1)(ii). The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation on the ground that goodwill did not pre-exist in the transferor’s books, no separate consideration was assigned in the business transfer agreement, and the fifth proviso to section 32(1) restricted depreciation. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. On appeal, the Tribunal examined whether goodwill arising on slump sale constituted an intangible asset eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. had conclusively recognised goodwill as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii). It was further held that the fifth proviso to section 32(1) applies only to cases of amalgamation, demerger or succession, and not to a slump sale between unrelated parties. Since the acquisition was a genuine slump sale of a going concern, the goodwill arose naturally as a business or commercial right. Consequently, depreciation on goodwill was allowable and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.

Jan 26-153

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad [2026] 1 TMI 1312 (ITAT Ahmedabad)

The assessee was subjected to search proceedings and subsequent assessment under section 153A, wherein the Assessing Officer examined seized material and accepted the explanations furnished, making no addition under section 69A. The Principal Commissioner invoked revisionary jurisdiction under section 263, alleging lack of proper enquiry and holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessee challenged the revision, contending that detailed enquiries were conducted, statements were recorded, and explanations regarding seized documents were duly considered. The Tribunal analysed the distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” and observed that the Assessing Officer had issued questionnaires, examined seized material, recorded statements, and consciously accepted the assessee’s explanation. It was held that section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion or desires deeper investigation without identifying specific deficiencies. The Tribunal found that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Accordingly, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was held to be invalid, and the revision order was quashed.

Jan 26-154

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 v. Adani Power Limited [2026] 1 TMI 1265 (Supreme Court – Order)

The Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Gujarat High Court’s judgment quashing a reassessment notice issued to the assessee on the ground of invalid “reasons to believe” and procedural infirmities. The High Court had set aside the reassessment notice along with the order rejecting objections. Before the Supreme Court, it was noted that the Revenue’s SLP suffered from an inordinate delay of 426 days. The explanation offered, attributing delay to administrative procedures, was found to be vague and unacceptable. On merits as well, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s reasoning did not warrant any interference. The Court held that filing an SLP merely to obtain the “stamp” of the Supreme Court, without reasonable cause for delay, could not be permitted. Consequently, the SLP was dismissed both on the ground of limitation and on merits, thereby affirming the quashing of reassessment proceedings against the assessee.

Jan 26-155

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), New Delhi v. Index Securities & Research Pvt. Ltd. [2026] 1 TMI 1475 (ITAT Delhi)

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made under section 68 by treating the assessee as an accommodation entry provider and estimating commission income at 2%. The assessment was based on information received from investigation wing during search proceedings in third-party cases. The assessee contended that it was a genuine business entity, had furnished complete documentary evidence, and that no incriminating material directly relating to it was brought on record. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer relied largely on third-party communications without independently examining the alleged incriminating material. It was further noted that in parallel proceedings under section 153C for the same entities, the Revenue had accepted returned income. The Tribunal held that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute evidence. Since the assessee was not proved to be a paper company and had discharged its onus under section 68, the addition on account of commission income and disallowance of bad debts were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

Jan 26-156

Asst. CIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai v. Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [2026] 1 TMI 1377 (ITAT Mumbai)

The assessee claimed long-term capital loss on sale of shares of group companies to an overseas buyer. The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss alleging lack of genuineness, improper valuation, and colourable device, primarily on the ground that shares were sold below face value and funding patterns were unusual. The CIT(A) deleted the addition. On appeal, the Tribunal examined valuation reports, net asset value, demat records, and consistency of Revenue’s approach. It was found that the sale price was higher than NAV, independent valuation was not rebutted by the Department, and similar losses in respect of identical transactions were accepted by the Assessing Officer in the same year. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not reject the valuation without conducting his own valuation or producing contrary evidence. The allegation of colourable device was also rejected as it was never part of the assessment order. Accordingly, the deletion of disallowance was upheld and the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

Jan 26-157

Rama Industries Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-3 & Anr.

[2026] 1 TMI 624 (Bombay High Court)

The petitioner exercised the option under section 115BAA for concessional corporate tax but the Assessing Officer denied the benefit and proceeded to assess income under section 115JB. The petitioner contended that the option was validly exercised and denial was contrary to statutory provisions. The High Court examined whether procedural lapses could defeat a substantive statutory benefit. Relying on precedents, the Court held that once the assessee satisfied the conditions of section 115BAA, the concessional rate could not be denied on technical grounds. The Court directed the Revenue to assess the petitioner under section 115BAA and restrain application of section 115JB. The writ petition was allowed, reinforcing that beneficial tax regimes cannot be frustrated by procedural rigidity.

Jan 26-158

Reopening Beyond Three Years Without Approval of Specified Authority Held Invalid

Babu Lal Patwari v. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Haldwani
[2026] 1 TMI 1374 (ITAT Dehradun), decided on 23 January 2026

In this case, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2014–15 on the ground that the notice under section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without obtaining approval from the “specified authority” as mandated under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (new regime). The Assessing Officer had obtained approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), whereas, under section 151(ii), approval was required from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General when more than three years had elapsed. The Tribunal, relying heavily on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, held that sanction by the correct authority is a jurisdictional precondition and not a procedural formality. Since the approval was not accorded by the statutorily prescribed authority, the notice under section 148 was held to be without jurisdiction, illegal, and void ab initio. The Tribunal reiterated that powers conferred on a particular authority must be exercised only by that authority, and failure to comply vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the reassessment notice and the resultant proceedings were quashed, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Jan 26-159

Reassessment Set Aside for Denial of Effective Opportunity to Produce Accounts

Bankura District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
[2026] 1 TMI 1262 (Calcutta High Court), decided on 20 January 2026

The writ petition challenged an order passed under section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under section 148 for AY 2019–20, primarily on the ground that the Assessing Officer proceeded to reopen the assessment without granting the petitioner an effective opportunity to reconcile transactions by producing its balance sheet and profit and loss account. The petitioner, a cooperative bank, had undergone a PAN change and had repeatedly expressed willingness to furnish any additional documents sought by the department. However, without specifically calling for the balance sheet and P&L accounts, the Assessing Officer concluded that reconciliation was not possible and proceeded with reassessment. The Calcutta High Court held that, in view of the petitioner’s expressed readiness to provide documents, the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to grant one further opportunity before invoking reassessment powers. The Court emphasized that reassessment proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, particularly when the assessee is cooperative and no deliberate non-compliance is shown. Accordingly, the impugned order under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions to consider the petitioner’s documents and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

Jan 26-160

Reopening Quashed Due to Doubtful Service of Notice and Violation of Natural Justice

Basu Tea Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
[2026] 1 TMI 1263 (Calcutta High Court), decided on 20 January 2026

The petitioners assailed reassessment proceedings for AY 2017–18 on the ground that the notice issued under section 148A(b) was never properly served, resulting in denial of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Revenue claimed that service was effected by uploading the notice on the income-tax portal, while the petitioners contended that the notice was sent to an obsolete email ID despite prior intimation of a changed email address. The High Court examined Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules and the CBDT notification governing electronic service and observed that portal-based service must be accompanied by real-time alerts to the assessee. In the absence of evidence showing that such alerts were sent, and considering that notices were not served on the updated email ID, the Court held that proper service was doubtful. Since the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to respond before the order under section 148A(d) was passed, the reassessment proceedings were found to be in violation of natural justice. Accordingly, the order under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 were set aside, and the petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply to the show-cause notice, after which the Assessing Officer was directed to take a fresh decision in accordance with law.