SUPREME COURTMotor Accident Claims - Tax Returns Can Be Accepted To Determine Income Only If They Are Appropriately Produced : Supreme CourtCase name: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand.Case no.: SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018The Supreme Court, recently (on January 02), while deciding a motor accident compensation claim case, observed that monthly income could be fixed...
SUPREME COURT
Case name: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand.
Case no.: SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018
The Supreme Court, recently (on January 02), while deciding a motor accident compensation claim case, observed that monthly income could be fixed after taking into account the tax returns. However, the details of tax payment must be properly brought into evidence to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income.
The Bench of Justices C.T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol were deciding a batch of appeals preferred both by the insurer and the claimant. While the claimant prayed for the enhancement of compensation, the insurer pleaded for the reduction.
Reduction In Share Capital Amounts To Transfer Of Capital Asset Under Income Tax Act : Supreme Court
Case Name: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 & ANR v. M/S. JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 63 OF 2025
The Supreme Court (recently on January 02) reiterated that reduction in share capital is covered under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which talks about transfer of a capital asset. It explained that such reduction would come under the expression “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset” used in the provision.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said that this provision provides an inclusive definition of transfer, covering relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right.
'Badly Drafted Petition' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging TDS System Of Income Tax Act
Case title: Ashwini Upadhyay v Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) No. 20/2025
The Supreme Court today (January 24) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation challenging the provisions of the Income Tax Act which impose an obligation on private employers to deduct tax at source (TDS) on the salaries paid by them.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said that the petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay was "badly drafted" and asked him to approach the High Court.
Case title: VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA Vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20519 OF 2024
The Supreme Court on January 7 set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated March 21, 2017, through which the rejection to the compounding application of the Appellant for the assessment year 2013-2014, for having filed the belated income tax return, was upheld on the ground that only for the "first offence" compounding of offence is possible. Since the Appellant had filed delayed income tax for 2011-2012 and his compounding application was accepted, it now cannot be accepted.
However, the Supreme Court observed that the "first offence" is the offence committed prior to the show cause notice, which was the case here for both years.
Case Name: K KRISHNAMURTHY VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2411 OF 2025
The Supreme Court, while determining a tax matter, observed that the undisclosed income, under Section 271AAA(1) of the Income Tax Act, surrendered by the assessee during the search, is not sufficient to levy the penalty.
Case Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS VERSUS M/S INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 19528/2018
The Supreme Court reiterated that when a charitable trust registers under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) for income tax exemptions (under Sections 10 and 11), the tax authorities should check if the charity's proposed activities match its charitable goals, as stated in the Ananda Social case.
The Court, however, clarified that mere registration under Section 12-AA would not entitle a charitable trust to claim exemption under Sections 10 and 11 respectively of the Act, 1961, and the authorities can decline the grant of exemption if the materials produced by the trust does not seem convincing for grant of exemption.
Bombay HC
Case Title: City Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 6076 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court stated that notice issued to a non-existing entity post-merger is a substantive illegality and not some procedural violation.
“we cannot condone the fundamental error in issuing the impugned notices against a non-existing company despite full knowledge of the merger. The impugned notices, which are non-est cannot be treated as “good” as urged on behalf of the department” stated the Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain.
Case Title: The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1041 OF 2012
The Bombay High Court stated that ITAT cannot overstep its authority by deciding on merits when it has already concluded an appeal was not maintainable.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “Once the ITAT concluded that the Appeal before it against the impugned communication/order was not “maintainable”, there was no question of the ITAT evaluating the impugned communication/order on its merits or making any observations or recording any findings regarding its validity or otherwise. Therefore, such observations and findings are without jurisdiction and should not have been made.”
Case title: Oxford University Press v. DCIT, Int. Tax Circle 3 (2)(2) & Ors.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.1894 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has made it clear that merely because the tax rate which is applicable on an assessee changes in future assessment years (AYs), is not a ground to initiate reassessment action against it for previous AYs, unless the 'jurisdictional parameters' of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are fulfilled.
A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain thus quashed the reassessment order passed against Oxford University Press, merely because its tax status was changed from 'resident' to 'non-resident', making it subject to a 40% tax rate instead of 30%.
Case title: Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. ITAT Pune Bench & Ors.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 17572 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court has disapproved of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal against an ex-parte order passed against a former employee of Pfizer Healthcare without providing him an opportunity of hearing.
Stating that ITAT cannot “perpetuate” the ex-parte order, a division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna directed the Tribunal to hear the employee de novo, so far as his prayer for the grant of exemption under section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned.
Calcutta HC
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 Kolkata Vs Champalal Omprakash
Case no.: ITAT/5/2025
The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an ITAT order deleting the addition of over ₹4 crore made to the income of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in reassessment action.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak held that the Assessing Officer had erred in not disposing of the written objection submitted by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case title: Deepak Agrawal & Ors. v. Property Tax Assessment Officer & Ors.
Case no.: WPT No. 159 of 2024
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that it cannot exercise writ jurisdiction against an order by the District Judge, which is the Appellate Authority under the Municipal Corporation Act 1956, upholding imposition of property tax.
In doing so, single judge Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas cited Section 149 of the Act which prescribes that the Appellate Authority is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Delhi HC
Case title: Sumit Bharana v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16701/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that co-accused are entitled to apply separately for compounding of offences committed by a Company or a Hindu Undivided Family under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the co-accused need not await filing of application for compounding by the company or the HUF.
Case title: S A N Garments Manufacturing Private Limited v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 7 And Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 932/2024
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a designated authority under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 cannot reopen an assessment after a final certificate is issued under Section 5 of the Act and all disputes with regard to the 'tax arrear' stand concluded.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “once a declarant is issued a certificate (Form No.5) in terms of Section 5 of the DTVSV Act, and the declarant deposits the determined amount, the Designated Authority is proscribed from initiating any action or proceedings in respect of 'tax arrear'. The dispute stands settled.”
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central -1 v. Capital Power Systems Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 501/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be invoked for reassessment only to give effect to a 'conclusive finding' by an appellate authority regarding escapement of income by an assessee.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that invocation of the provision requires a “strict and cautious application” of the terms 'findings' and 'direction' to prevent the reopening of assessments based on findings or directions that are only incidental, tangential, or beyond statutory authority.
Case title: ATS Township Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13790/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessing officer of a searched person to record 'satisfaction' and handover documents regarding undisclosed income of another person cannot be substituted by merely uploading such information on the Department's insight portal.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Uploading of information by the investigation wing of the Income Tax department would not be a substitute for recording of a satisfaction note by the AO of a searched person and handing over the assets, books of accounts or other material to the AO of the person other than the searched person for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act.”
Case title: Late Sh. Lal Chand Verma Through His Legal Heir v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8184/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 159 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked to proceed against the legal representative of an assessee, only in cases where the reassessment notice was issued to the assessee during his lifetime, not after.
Division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma noted that “Section 159 of the Act is applicable when proceedings are initiated and pending against an assessee during their lifetime, and the legal representative assumes responsibility after the assessee's death. This was not the factual scenario in the present case; therefore, Section 159 of the Act is not applicable here.”
Case title: Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10960/2016
The Delhi High Court has held that the delay in issuing requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be condoned if the same is explained by the Authority concerned.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “...there has been some delay in issuance of the impugned requisition, however, the Income Tax Department has explained that the said delay was on account of investigations conducted by it. In the given circumstances, we are unable to accept that the impugned requisition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay. ”
Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12316/2022
The Delhi High Court has turned down the contention that an Assessing Officer, at the stage of passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, is not required to form any opinion as to the genuineness or veracity of the information available against an assessee.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “As is clear from the plain language of Section 148A(d) of the Act, the AO has to decide whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. This decision would require the AO to take a view in respect of the material available and form an opinion whether there are grounds to believe that the assessee's income has escaped assessment.”
Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12316/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that merely because notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is issued in the name of an amalgamating company which had ceased to exist, subsequent notice issued under Section 148A(d) in the name of merged entity cannot be declared invalid.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “The nature of proceedings under Section 148A of the Act is to enable the AO to form an opinion whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Given the nature of the proceedings under Section 148A of the Act, we are unable to accept that issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in the name of an entity, which had since amalgamated with the petitioner, would be fatal to the AO assuming jurisdiction by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in the name of the petitioner.”
Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) No.17570/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer is required to be satisfied that accommodation entries as alleged in show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 exist, particularly where the assessee produces its accounts.
In doing so, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heavily relied on its recent ruling in Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. where it was held that to initiate reassessment proceedings under the Act, the AO must conduct an enquiry with respect to the information that suggests escapement of income, to ascertain its correctness.
Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2830/2022
The Delhi High Court observed that absence of a formal notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not fatal to reassessment proceedings initiated in the twilight zone when the inquiry provisions were introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma noted that the Department had provided an opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to question the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148, which was the “underlying principle” of Section 148A.
Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2830/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that the benchmark of minimum Rs. 50 lakh income escapement prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be met at the very initiation of reassessment proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “Additions ultimately made in the course of reassessment would not validate the initiation of proceedings if founded on income of INR 46,17,000/- having escaped assessment and thus evidently below the threshold of INR 50 lakhs.”
Case title: Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 3
Case no.: ITA 426/2024
The Delhi High Court recently said aside an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, deciding grounds that did not arise from the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The Assessee's challenge to the addition of ₹4,30,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act had remained unaddressed by the learned CIT(A) but had been affirmed by the learned ITAT, without the same arising from the order passed by the learned CIT(A). The learned ITAT has clearly erred in entering into the said controversy without the learned CIT(A) rendering any finding on merits in regard to the petitioner's appeal.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 9 v. M/S Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S North Delhi Power Limited)
Case no.: ITA 687/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would be inapplicable to an electricity generation company.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma thus dismissed the Department's appeals against Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited, a joint venture of Tata Power with the Delhi government for purposes of power generation and distribution of electricity in two districts of Delhi.
Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2830/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) did not affirm the authority of a Joint Commissioner to grant approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed that the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case “merely alluded to the time frames within which approval under Section 151 of the could be sought for and obtained.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Delhi Vedanta Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 88/2022
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined the Income Tax Department's appeal to treat as 'curable', the error committed in naming the relevant entity while issuing reassessment notices. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma refused to grant the benefit which the Supreme Court had given to the Department in Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant commissioner of Income-tax (2018).
It observed, “It was the conduct of the assessee in Sky Light which had convinced the Supreme Court to observe that the mistake would not render the order of assessment invalid and that it could be saved under Section 292B of the. The facts of the present case are clearly not akin to what prevailed in Sky Light.”
Case title: Abhinav Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 52
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7405/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that if the Revenue issues a reassessment notice to an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following due procedure, it cannot later issue fresh reassessment notice beyond the prescribed period, claiming that time spent on earlier litigation is to be excluded for the purposes of computing limitation.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the earlier round was set aside on the ground that the AO had not followed the mandatory requirement of seeking an approval from the competent authority…The fact that the Revenue had not taken the steps in accordance with law cannot possibly be construed as a factor in favour of the Revenue for extending the limitation.”
Case title: Smt. Shivani Madan v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-01 & Anr.
Case no.: ITA 573/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that where a property is held jointly but only one co-owner reaps the benefit of income from such property, the other co-owner cannot be held liable to pay tax merely by virtue of co-ownership.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “the [Income Tax] Act fails to raise any presumption in law, of income necessarily arising or being liable to be assessed in the hands of an individual merely because it be a signatory to an instrument of conveyance. In our considered opinion, the question of taxability would necessarily have to be answered bearing in mind the individual who had in fact obtained benefits from the property.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar
Case no.: ITA 199/2017
The Delhi High Court has held that the fees paid by IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to acquire the goodwill vested in a company run by the family members of its deceased founder, is a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the primary, nay, sole purpose for incurring expenditure towards license fee was to use the words “Remfry & Sagar” and derive benefit of the goodwill attached to it. The appellant do not dispute that Dr. Sagar had validly acquired the goodwill and that the same constituted a valuable asset which was transferable.”
Case title: Property Plus Realtors v. Union Of India & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17371/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the date of the assessment order, wherein an Assessing Officer recommended separate penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting more than ₹2 lakh in cash, is not relevant for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said a plain reading of Section 275(1)(c) indicates that the time limit for completion of the action for imposition of penalty is to be reckoned from: (a) the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed; or (b) six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever expires later.
Case title: M/S SMEC India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9969/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be preferred by an assessee who makes suo motu disallowance in its Return of Income (RoI/ ITR), under a bonafide yet mistaken belief that the same was liable to be offered for taxation.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar added that the assessee cannot be denied relief merely on the ground that the application was moved without amending the RoI.
Case title: Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3908/2023
The Delhi High Court has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to elucidate the time period surviving under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing reassessment notices.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would be excluded from limitation, in view of Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
Further, the period between the date of issuance of the impugned reassessment notices (if falling between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021) up to the date of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal case (04 May 2022), would also be excluded, in light of third proviso to Section 149(1). The bench added that the third period which is liable to be excluded is the time for furnishing objections by the assessee.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd
Case no.: ITA 388/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that the limit prescribed under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, on deductions that an employer can seek for contributions made towards superannuation funds, applies only at the stage of setting up the fund or making ordinary annual payments.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would not be rendered as a disallowable expense.
Case title: Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16232/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period for initiating reassessment against an assessee, is not an enabling provision but rather a proscription on the Assessing Officer's powers.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act is a hard stop. Therefore, the procedure that is required to be completed for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be completed prior to the expiry of the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. Such time limit cannot be breached…There is no ambiguity in this regard given the construct of Section 149(1) of the Act, which is not in the nature of enabling provision but a provision that proscribes an action.”
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd
Case no.: ITA 113/2024
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer passing an impugned assessment order is situated would have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tushar Rao Gedela agreed with the assessee, stating that since the appeal before it emanates from an assessment order issued by the AO in Amritsar, it does not have territorial jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court has held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as contained under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned with the transfer of 'distinctive', 'specialized' knowledge, skill, expertise and know-how by a service provider.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus observed that assistance provided by the assessee-respondent with respect to rules and regulations for clearance of customs frontiers is not 'specialised knowledge' to make the service 'FTS'.
Case title: Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1662/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that after the closure of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer becomes 'functus officio' and to re-confer jurisdiction upon the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings, relevant incriminating material ought to be put to the assessee.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation while dealing with a writ petition filed by Vivo Mobiles, assailing the reassessment proceedings initiated against it under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title: Tilak Raj Singh v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 772/2018
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in terms of the Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 an employee cannot change travel destination midway through the journey and if due to some unavoidable circumstance it has been changed, the same has to be a destination which is en route.
In the case at hand, LTC was originally sought for travel to Trivandrum, which was subsequently changed to Goa, via Mumbai. However, the petitioner decided midway to change his destination to certain hill stations in Uttarakhand.
Case title: SFDC Ireland Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12847/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that before rejecting an assessee's application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for nil TDS or deduction of tax at a lower rate, the assessing officer must form a prima facie opinion regarding the assessee's taxability in India.
Section 197(1) of the Act enables an assessee to make an application for a certificate requiring the deduction of tax at a lower rate or no deduction at all if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the total income of the recipient justifies such nil deduction or deduction at a lower rate.
Case title: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9786/2016
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment action initiated by the Income Tax Department against car manufacturer Maruti Suzuki India Ltd for alleged escapement of income in the Assessment Year 2009-10.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed that the company had made full and true disclosure of all facts in the course of the assessment and the Department did not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title: Ateesh Agarwal v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2139/2025
The Delhi High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by a man, seeking an inquiry into the finances of his wife and her family who claimed to have paid him ₹2 crores dowry, in addition to spending crores of rupees on their wedding.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the complaint stemmed from a matrimonial feud and the man was unable to indicate the provision under which such a complaint was made to the Income Tax department.
CBDT Cannot Impose Limitations To Extinguish Rights Granted Under Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8444/2018
Recently, the Delhi High Court held that Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) cannot impose limitations to extinguish rights granted under Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the wide powers granted to the CBDT are not for extinguishing a right that is conferred by the Act. Accordingly, the Court Circular No. 07/2007 dated 23 October 2007 issued by the CBDT to the be ultra vires the Income Tax Act.
Case title: M/S Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, & Anr.
Case no.: ITA 45/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which contemplates tax incentives for enterprises operating in specific industries and locations in India, does not require such enterprises to enter into an agreement with the Government.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar distinguished the provision from Section 80IA, whereunder agreement with the Centre, State or local authority is a pre-condition for claiming deductions.
Case title: Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2043/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be used to save an assessment order passed by overlooking errors apparent on face of the record. The provision provides that no notice or assessment or any proceedings can be deemed to be invalid merely for the reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice, assessment or other proceedings.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said while the provision would save reassessment notice which inadvertently furnished to assessee information relating to some other individual instead of his own however, the subsequent reassessment order passed by overlooking such mistake cannot be condoned.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 v. M/S Ridgeview Construction Pvt. Ltd
Case no.: ITA 618/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that even though Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not in its original form prescribe two-tier satisfaction of Assessing Officers of both the searched and non-searched entity for initiating reassessment, the same cannot be deemed absent.
“In our considered opinion, while and undoubtedly Section 153C as it stood at the relevant time did not contemplate a two tier recordal of satisfaction and the AO of the searched person was merely obliged to transmit the material belonging or pertaining to a third person gathered in the course of a search, proceedings under the said provision could not have been triggered mechanically absent the formation of opinion by the AO of the non-searched person that the material was likely to impact an assessment made,” a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed.
Case title: Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 356/2025
The Delhi High Court has expressed grave concern over the pendency of over 5.4 Lakh appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The body was created for faceless assessment under Section 143 or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the insertion of Section 144B via the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked, “This court is cognizant of the large number of statutory appeals pending for disposal before the NFAC and express concern over the delay in disposal of such appeals, for which the NFAC was envisaged.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 320/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to appeals to High Courts, does not envisage the filing of cross-objections by the opposite party, unlike Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The Legislature appears to have consciously desisted from adopting principles akin to Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code or specifically introducing provisions enabling the respondent in an appeal under Section 260A to prefer cross-objections.”
Case title: Fasttrack Tieup Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15237/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot, suspecting escapement of tax on income by an assessee, indefinitely attach its properties without taking further steps to resolve the matter.
Single judge Justice Sachin Datta observed that Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which empowers the Tax Recovery Officer to proceed with “attachment and sale of assessee's movable property” to recover the due taxes, explicitly states “attachment and sale,” signifying a sequential process where the property, once attached, must subsequently be sold to recover the arrears.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. WGF Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 184/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allowance in respect of bad debts as an expense under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible only if: (a) the debt was taken into account for computing the income of the assessee in the previous year in which the amount is written off or prior previous years; or (b) represents money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending.
Case title: Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 399/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power of the Central government to relax conditions prescribed under Rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules 1962, read with Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1962, is exceptional, discretionary and cannot ordinarily be subject to judicial review.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the power to relax a Rule or a condition is by way of an exception, and the scope of such power cannot be construed in an expansive manner.
Case title: Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: ITA 660/2018
The Delhi High Court has allowed Vodafone Mobile, engaged in providing telecommunication services, to claim depreciation of ₹5.10 crores in respect of fixed assets over provisioned expenditure to discharge its contractual obligation of restoring mobile tower sites to their original condition at the end of the lease period.
Though Asset reconstruction Cost (ARC) was laid out by Vodafone, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim, stating that the same is not 'ascertained liability'.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 61/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' cannot be made applicable to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which enables an assessing officer to open an assessment if he has 'reason to believe' that an assessee's income escaped assessment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “It is trite that the concept of “proving beyond reasonable doubt” applies “strictu senso” to penal provisions/statutes. It is also trite that in taxing statutes, in particular, section 148 of the Act, the “reason to believe”, must be based on objective materials, and on a reasonable view.”
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation
Case no.: ITA 469/2023
In an order bringing relief to the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), which was incorporated to protect the interests of various stakeholders in the field of television broadcasting, the Delhi High Court allowed the body to claim exemption from payment of tax under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “BARC, being a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, is legally prohibited from distributing any dividends or profits to its shareholders. Additionally, in the event of liquidation, Memorandum of Association of BARC mandates that any surplus must be transferred to another company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act with similar objectives, thereby negating any possibility of personal gain or profit for the Assessee from its deployment of funds.”
Case title: Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10867/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that when an appellate authority has asked the Income Tax Department to not take any coercive steps against an assessee for recovery of outstanding demands, the same can in some cases interdict the Department from adjusting the outstanding amount from refunds due to the assessee.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia took note of a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which held that an adjustment would amount to 'coercive proceedings'.
Case title: Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394 Case no.: W.P.(C) 11156/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory scheme of Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not envisage the discovery of a connection or interrelationship between the searched and the non-searched entity.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the trigger for Section 153C is the discovery of articles in the course of a search which pertain or belong to a third party, and which may have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person.
Case title: Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11376/2024
In a relief to German cargo airline Lufthansa, the Delhi High Court set aside the Revenue's order denying nil TDS certificate to the company for the financial year 2024-25.
“Where the petitioner has been granted certificate at nil withholding tax for prior assessment years and there is no issue to the chargeability of the petitioner's income to tax under the Act, the impugned certificate requiring withholding tax at reduced rate instead of nil rate, cannot be sustained,” Court said.
Gauhati HC
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rohit Karan Jain
Case Number: ITA/5/2023
The Gauhati High Court stated that retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material and no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT were of the view that the said piece of evidence, i.e. retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material, noted the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami.
Gujarat HC
Case Title: M/s Total Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20804 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court stated that the assessee is entitled to the interest on refund under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
“it is true that the assessee is not entitled to interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, however, when the assessee has opted for direct tax for Vivad se Visvas Scheme 2020 and filed the application which was approved by the designated authority and refund order is also passed as per the said scheme on 12/05/2022 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the assessee was entitled to the interest on the amount of refund till the same was paid to the assessee” stated the bench consists of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case title: M/s Deluxe Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer
Case no.: ITA No. 23 of 2017 alongwith CWP No.6575 of 2014
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has elucidated the mandatory twin conditions for transfer of an assessee's case under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from one Assessing Officer to another.
A division bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Rakesh Kainthla observed, “The twin conditions to be complied with by the respondents for transferring the case of the appellant/petitioner from respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 are: (i) the assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and (ii) the reasons for transfer should have been recorded.”
Karnataka HC
Case Title: The Income Tax Officer & ANR Preeti V
Case No:WRIT APPEAL NO. 1407 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court has said proceedings initiated against an Income Tax Assessee by issuing notice after his demise cannot be continued against his/her legal representative.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja said, “Had the proceedings been initiated against the Assessee during his lifetime, they could have continued against the legal representatives of the deceased Assessee.”
Case Title: Rajkumar Agarwal v. Income Tax Department.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201214 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201213 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201215 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201216 OF 2023
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution initiated by the Income Tax Department against an assessee who had willfully failed to submit his income tax returns in time for the Assessment Years 2012- 13 to 2015-16 and thereby committed the alleged offence.
A single judge, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petitions filed by Rajkumar Agarwal. It said, “Delay in filing of the income tax returns would not only result in payment of penalty, but it also results in prosecution as provided under Chapter 22 of the Act. Therefore, merely for the reason that petitioner has paid the penalty levied by the Competent Authority for the delay in filing of the returns, the same does not exonerate the petitioner from being prosecuted.”
Case Title: The PR. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2023
The Karnataka High Court stated that fair market value of shares determined by statutory methods can't be rejected by the income tax department.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing a case where the revenue has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal where the Tribunal held that the valuation report on DCF Method produced during assessment proceedings was a valid report justifying valuation of shares.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 77 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court stated that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “The role of the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not only that of an adjudicator but also of an investigator and he cannot remain oblivious in the face of a claim without any enquiry.”
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih
Case Number: WA NO. 1413 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that cash in bank account is a 'property' liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that “mere fact that Bank account is not explicitly provided under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, unlike the GST Act, 2017 which specifically mentions the same, cannot lead to the conclusion that Bank account is not liable to be attached under Section 281 B of the Act.”
Case Title: Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WA NO. 712 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that the issue as to whether there was a proper notice or not is a disputed question of fact and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“…As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour Ministry
Case Number: ITA NO. 20 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that principal commissioner has authority to cancel registration of assessee without waiting for decision from assessing authority.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “the provisions of Section 12AA independently empower the Principal Commissioner to consider whether or not the circumstances mentioned in Section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act exist as a pre-condition for directing a cancellation of the registration that was granted to the Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.”
Case Title: M J George (Died) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 1 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that burden of proof is on assessee to prove that he is entitled to capital gains tax exemption on sale of agricultural land.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “it is significant in this regard to observe that the claim of the assessee, being for exemption from the levy of income tax as applicable to capital gains, the burden of proof was on the assessee to show that he was entitled to exemption by virtue of the land sold by him being in the nature of agricultural land.”
Case Title: Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 11 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be under any circumstances construed as a closed remand and there is no requirement to challenge the order under Section 263 separately.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “In as much as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had decided the appeal preferred by the assessee against the revised assessment order on merits, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to have decided the appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceeding. Therefore, the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee as 'not maintainable''.
Madras HC
Case Title: Mark Studio India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and Others
Case No: W.P.Nos.25223 & 25227 of 2024
The Madras High Court recently clarified that both the Faceless Assessment Officer and Jurisdictional Assessment Officer have concurrent jurisdiction as far as assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made it clear that for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction. The court added that in matters of international taxation, central Circle charges and search and seizure cases also, the JAO had exclusive jurisdiction and the FAO, in such cases, did not have jurisdiction to make assessment, re-assessment or re-computation.
Orissa HC
Case title: Binod Pattanayak v. Union of India
Case no.: CRLMC No.3284 of 2023
The Orissa High Court has refused to entertain a petition filed for quashing the offence under Sections 276(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the Petitioner-accused should have sought compounding of the offence.
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed, “In the present regime, where the compounding of the offence is permissible, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not be necessarily invoked by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner may resort to the procedural remedy under Section 320 Cr.P.C. by relying upon the Circular dated 17.10.2024 and seek for compounding of the offences complained off against him by the Revenue.”
Rajasthan HC
Case Title: Sharda Devi Chhajer v. Union of India and others
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11787/2024
The Rajasthan High Court stated that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacks jurisdiction to issue income tax reassessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman observed that “the JAO shall not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as it would not only render Section 151A weak, but may also lead to its diminishing activation.”
Sikkim HC
Case title: Dr. Doma T. Bhutia v. Union Of India & Another
Case no.: WP (PIL) No. 01/2025
The Sikkim High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the definition 'Sikkimese' under the Income Tax Act, which was slightly expanded by way of an amendment in terms of the Finance Act, 2023.
A division bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai upheld the vires of Explanation (v) contained under clause (26AAA) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: OYO Hotels vs Principal CIT
Case Number: ITA No.2611/Del/2024
The Delhi ITAT held that the transactions between holding and its wholly owned subsidiary entity towards issuance of shares are not covered within ambit of Sec 56(2)(viib) in absence of any benefit arising from such transactions.
Referring to the Coordinate Benchs, the Bench of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) reiterated that Sec 56(2)(viib) would not apply in the present case where the transaction is between the assessee (subsidiary company) with its 100% holding company as issuance of share.
Case Title: Shah Rukh Khan vs Deputy CIT
Case Number: ITA No.6312/MUM/2024
The Mumbai ITAT has quashed the reopening of assessment proceedings against the Assessee/ Appellant i.e., Shah Rukh Khan for AY 2012-13.
The tribunal held that the reasons recorded while initiating the re-assessment, were completely silent as regards the allegation that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Case title: Kapil Dev Nikhanj v. ACIT
Case no.: ITA No. 1770/Del/2023
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi allowed renowned cricketer Kapil Dev to claim exemption on Rs. 1.5 crore one-time benefit granted to him by the BCCI in 2013, in recognition of his services.
Noting that the cricketer had offered the amount for tax under ignorance, bench of M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and MS Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) said, “It is trite law that right amount of tax should be collected from the right person in accordance with law. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax could be collected except by an authority of law. When a statute specifically provides a particular exemption of a particular receipt from tax, the said receipt cannot be brought to tax merely because the assessee had offered erroneously in the return of income.”
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Recently, the new Income Tax Bill 2025 was introduced in Parliament. Although touted as a step to make Income tax law in India simpler, the Bill contains some provisions which may disturb taxpayers by infringing on their right to privacy. One such provision in the new Bill would allow the Income tax department to access the email, trading account, social media profiles and other personal data of assesses during tax investigation. However, it has been clarified that before the law is enacted, a committee will review it.
Such a provision causes great concern as it allows the infringement into "virtual digital space" of the assessee by extending the scope of the tax probe. So far, according to the old law, the tax officer has the right to demand access to laptops, hard drives and emails, but has no right to demand passwords of any social media account.
The Ministry of Finance has told the Parliament that the Income Tax officials cannot access the personal emails, social media accounts and bank accounts of all assesses.
However, there is a provision in the new Income Tax Bill 2025, which allows Income Tax officals, in certain cases of search and seizure, to access the computer systems of the assesses by "overriding the access code", if the assesse is not cooperating.