Depreciation In Sale–Leaseback Cannot Be Denied On Mere Suspicion: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 20 April 2026 held that under the Income Tax Act, 1961, a taxpayer is entitled to claim deduction of accrued construction expenses and depreciation arising from sale and leaseback transactions. It ruled that such transactions cannot be treated as colourable devices merely because they result in tax advantages. A Division Bench comprising Justices G. Jayachandran and Shamim Ahmed dismissed the appeals filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 260-A and affirmed...

ITAT Quashes Reassessment Based On Third-Party Statements, Deletes ₹94.5 Lakh Additions

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 7 April 2026 held that reassessment proceedings cannot survive where the Assessing Officer relies solely on general third-party statements without establishing a clear nexus with the taxpayer, as such material fails to show independent application of mind or escapement of income. The Bench comprising Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra R. Kamble allowed the appeal filed by Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd. for...

Bombay High Court Allows Delay Condonation For Charitable Trust IT Filing, Attributes Delay To CA Lapse

The Bombay High Court has set aside an order rejecting a charitable trust's request to excuse a delay in filing Form 10, holding that a lapse on the part of its Chartered Accountant could not be used to deny the trust tax exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. A Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla said, “the Petitioner Trust would suffer grave hardship if the delay is not condoned since the Petitioner Firm would be saddled with a huge tax liability for...

Taxpayer Liable Only For Own Investment Share, Not Spouse's Contribution: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 17 April 2026 held that a taxpayer can only be required to explain his own share of investment and cannot be saddled with tax liability for the contribution of a co-owner, including a spouse, where joint ownership and independent sources of funds are evident. A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar set aside the assessment order passed under Sections 143(3) read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the matter for reconsideration,...

Madras High Court Holds Post-Search Return Invalid In Block Assessment, Rejects Kerala Roadways' Claim

The Madras High Court on 7 April, held that a return filed after the initiation of search proceedings and beyond the due date cannot qualify as a valid disclosure to exclude such income from undisclosed income in block assessment under the Income Tax Act. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and R. Sakthivel rejected the Kerala Roadways appeal. It partly accepted one of the Revenue's appeals and fully accepted another, while deciding issues on block assessment, revisional powers, and...

Supreme Court Declines To Interfere With Calcutta High Court IT Order Favouring Britannia

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with a tax department plea against Britannia Industries Ltd, upholding a Calcutta High Court ruling that had set aside a Income Tax revision order. The dispute concerned the valuation of property acquired by the company and deductions claimed for statutory dues such as taxes.A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while declining to interfere with the High Court's order, kept the interpretation of Section 56(2)(x) of the...

IT Appellate Authority Must Pass Speaking Order, Hear AO Before Admitting Fresh Evidence: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently held that an appellate authority under the Income Tax law cannot allow a taxpayer to file fresh evidence at the appeal stage without first passing a reasoned order and giving the tax officer a fair chance to respond. A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar said, “We are also of the clear view that the opportunity to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage could not be granted by the First Appellate Authority...

CIT(A) Cannot Introduce New Income Source While Enhancing Assessment: ITAT Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot enhance income by introducing a new source of income that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not examine during assessment. It ruled that enhancement powers do not extend to issues beyond the scope of the original assessment.The Bench comprising Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia allowed Skyline Greathills' appeal on the Work-in-Progress (WIP) enhancement...

ITAT Delhi Upholds Deletion Of ₹10.5 Crore Addition Based On Retracted Statement In Oppo Search Case

The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 April upheld the deletion of a Rs. 10.5 crore addition made solely on the basis of a retracted statement recorded during search proceedings, holding that such statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence, cannot by themselves sustain an addition under the Income-tax Act. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the order of the...

Reassessment Notices Invalid Where No Escaped Income In Form Of 'Asset' Above ₹50 Lakh: ITAT New Delhi

The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 April, held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years are invalid unless the Revenue demonstrates that the alleged escaped income is represented in the form of an “asset” exceeding Rs. 50 lakh, as required under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal quashed reassessment notices issued under Section 148 in the case of...

ITAT Chennai Deletes ₹49.80 Lakh Additions On Flat Purchase And Cash Deposits, Allows Reinvestment Benefit

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Chennai has recently deleted additions of Rs.49.80 lakh and Rs.10.80 lakh made against a taxpayer after finding that her investment in a new flat and cash deposits were wrongly treated as unexplained, despite being traceable to the sale of her earlier property and household items. A bench of Judicial Member Aby T. Varkey and Accountant Member S.R. Raghunatha held, “We thus find that the addition made by the AO u/s 69A was without any basis and on...

Revised IT Return Permissible Only For Bona Fide Discovery Of Omission Or Mistake: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on 9 April, held that a taxpayer can file a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only when it discovers a bona fide omission or wrong statement in the original return filed under Section 139(1). The provision cannot be used to make deliberate or afterthought changes. The Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi emphasised that a valid revised return replaces the original return for all purposes under the Act, but only when it reflects...