The Supreme Court upheld the reopening of tax assessments of Chetan and Nitin Sabharwal for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, holding that a post-assessment investigation report on overvalued shares was tangible material and no change of opinion was involved.
Can a court charge a party for letting it call a witness the court itself finds necessary? Not under Section 311 CrPC, the Supreme Court has held, undoing costs of Rs 1 lakh per case imposed on the Income Tax Department. New Delhi: Costs levied on the Income Tax Department for allowing its applications under […]
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking a prescribed time limit for deciding applications to cancel dual PAN cards, granting the petitioner liberty to represent to the CBDT and directing the Board to decide within eight weeks. New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking a […]
The Central Board of Direct Taxes has amended Rule 225 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026 to remove arrest and detention as modes of recovering tax arrears, with retrospective effect from April 1, 2026. Notified through the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, the change aligns the recovery process with the Finance Act, 2026 and shifts the emphasis to attachment and sale of property, though other recovery mechanisms remain available.
A same-sex couple has asked the Karnataka High Court to read the word ‘spouse’ in the Income Tax Act’s gift-exemption provision to include them, after one partner’s gift of a gold-bracelet heirloom to the other was treated as taxable income. The Centre has opposed the plea, arguing that ‘spouse’ takes its meaning from a legally recognised marriage, that the classification rests on marital status rather than sexual orientation, and that recognising same-sex marriage was left by the Supreme Court to Parliament.
Allowing a batch of five writ petitions, the Delhi High Court has quashed reassessment notices issued to Teva Pharmaceuticals USA as time-barred and without jurisdiction, set aside an Authority for Advance Rulings order, and directed the Income Tax Department to refund about Rs 783 crore of TDS to Teva Israel with interest. The Court held that while protective assessment is permissible, there is no concept of protective recovery, and that withholding the refund for over a decade was arbitrary to the point of being confiscatory.
The Supreme Court has stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment striking down Section 147A of the Income Tax Act as unconstitutional, on the Union’s plea, but on the condition that the assessment proceedings shall not proceed further until the appeal is finally decided. The provision, inserted retrospectively to clarify that a jurisdictional officer can conduct faceless-era reassessment, will be finally heard on December 3, 2026.
The Income Tax department sought to reopen, by a Section 148 reassessment, a matter already settled by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, disallowing a deduction and adding over Rs 65 crore to Omaxe Limited’s income. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that an ITSC order is conclusive under Section 245I and can be reopened only by the Commission itself under Section 245D(6) on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, not by the Assessing Officer.