The ITAT Delhi held that a common satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without year-wise incriminating material could not validly confer jurisdiction under Section 153C. It consequently quashed the assessment.
Learn about the income tax benefits available to resident senior and very senior citizens, including higher exemption limits, deductions, and compliance relief. The FAQs also explain advance tax exemption and return filing provisions for eligible taxpayers.
An accused could not be kept in jail indefinitely in a money laundering case when the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The court granted bail to the accused, observing that he had already spent nearly five years in custody and that continued detention would be unjustified.
The Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments quashing reassessment notices after noting that the Finance Act, 2026 introduced clarificatory amendments affecting the competence of Assessing Officers. The matters were remanded for fresh consideration, leaving all legal issues open.
The SC declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court ruling after the Revenue acknowledged dismissal of similar SLPs. The High Court held that Section 153C proceedings cannot continue where the jurisdictional AO fails to identify year-specific incriminating material.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer failed to record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessees total income, rendering the Section 153C proceedings invalid. The assessments for multiple years were consequently quashed.
Non-maintenance of minimum balance by customers did not generate taxable consideration and, therefore, no service tax/GST, interest or penalty could be levied. Revenue was also bound by its earlier acceptance of an identical adjudication order in favour of another bank.
The ITAT Delhi held that a single satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without identifying year-wise incriminating material could not confer valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. It consequently quashed the assessment.
The ITAT Delhi held that a single consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without year-wise incriminating material could not validly confer jurisdiction under Section 153C. It quashed the assessments after following the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shaksham Commodities Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration of nearly five years without conclusion of trial justified grant of bail despite the seriousness of the UAPA allegations. It emphasized that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be ignored.
