Loading High Court cases…
1,921 orders from the Telangana High Court.
Most recent orders on record, 2025–2026.
The High Court held that the notice dated 24.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, and the approval accorded by respondent No.3 under Section 151, were barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(a) of the Act. The Court found that the case did not satisfy the threshold prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) for reopening beyond three years. The benefit of the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1) was unavailable to the Revenue as they were not considered at the time of issuing the notice. The Court emphasized that the sanctioning authority (respondent No.3) was obliged to independently satisfy itself on the material placed before it, including the petitioner's reply, regarding the correctness of the quantum and the timeliness of the notice. The Court found no application of mind in the approval process, describing it as a mechanical endorsement of a factually erroneous and legally unsustainable proposal. Consequently, the order under Section 148A(d), the notice under Section 148, the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B, and the penalty order under Section 271AAC(1) were all rendered void ab initio and unsustainable in law. The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside and quashed. The question of law was answered in favour of the petitioner.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 27.06.2026 under Section 148 of the Act emanated from the order issued under Section 148-A(3), which indicated consideration of the petitioner's reply and documents. The Court noted that the notice dated 27.04.2026 specifically mentioned the receipt of Overriding Commission (ORC) by the assessee through intermediaries and the conclusion of escapement of tax. The Court was of the considered view that the impugned notice specifically referred to the material and reply filed by the petitioner, and only upon consideration of the same was the notice under Section 148 issued. Furthermore, the Court stated that once a notice under Section 148 is issued, the petitioner has an ample opportunity to file the return of income and relevant documents before the Assessing Officer, who will consider them and pass appropriate orders. If aggrieved, the petitioner can avail further remedies. Therefore, the Court found no good grounds to interfere with the consequential notice and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition. The revenue submitted that an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been passed on 30.01.2026. The petitioners' counsel, while noting they had not received a copy of this order, stated that they would not press the writ petition at this stage. The Court, considering these submissions, disposed of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail such other legal remedies as may be available to them under law, pursuant to the assessment order dated 30.01.2026. No order as to costs was made. The interim applications, if any, were also closed.
The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. On the date of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, sought to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted the prayer and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to prefer a duly constituted appeal under the relevant provision of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, no findings were made on the legality of the addition of Rs. 67,56,383/- or the estimation of business profit at 3% of turnover. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn, with liberty to file an appeal.
The High Court held that the question of law regarding whether a notice under Section 148A of the Act, issued after midnight of March 31, 2021, would be treated as beyond the limitation period has already been decided by this Court in a batch of writ petitions (WP.No.18098 of 2022 and batch), reported in (2024) 465 ITR 129. This judgment was further confirmed by the Supreme Court, which dismissed three Special Leave Petitions (SLP.(C) Nos.17098 of 2025, 33918 of 2025, and 24389 of 2025) against the High Court's decision. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 31, 2021 (issued on April 1, 2021), the assessment order dated March 23, 2022, and the subsequent order dated February 10, 2026, were held to be bad in law and were set aside/quashed. The Writ Petition was allowed.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. The Court found that the defect of unsigned memoranda of appeals was curable and relatively trivial. While acknowledging the appellant's responsibility to file appeals properly and cure defects promptly, the Court considered that not remanding the matters would deprive the appellant of an opportunity for adjudication on merits. Consequently, the three appeals were allowed, subject to the appellant depositing costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each appeal with the State Legal Services Authority within 10 days. Upon proof of deposit, the ITAT would restore the appeals, and the appellant would have 15 days thereafter to rectify all defects. The ITAT would then hear and decide the appeals on their merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The question of law was left to be considered in appropriate proceedings.
The High Court held that in the absence of evidence showing the amount was used for setting up new units, expanding existing units, or for capital expenditure, it should be treated as a revenue receipt. The orders of the ITAT and CIT(A) were considered perverse.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, imposing a cost on the assessee. The ITAT was directed to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that tax was to be deducted at source only on the work component of the contract, not the material component. Consequently, interest under Section 201(1A) was not leviable as the assessee was not liable for TDS on the material part.
The High Court held that the question of law was identical to previous cases decided by the same bench. Therefore, the present appeal was also allowed, with the question of law answered in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while an assessee cannot reopen assessment to file Form-10, if the revenue reopens assessment under Section 147, the assessee can furnish Form-10 during those proceedings. However, filing Form-10 only before the Tribunal was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that participation in a tender and taking steps towards land acquisition constitute setting up of a real estate business, even if the land is not ultimately acquired. The High Court agreed that this was a finding of fact and no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that the advances constituted deemed dividends as the assessees failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the property was mortgaged for the company's benefit and that the loans were not for their individual benefit.
The Tribunal held that the advances were deemed dividends as the assessees failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the property was mortgaged for the company's benefit and that the loans were not for individual benefit.
The Tribunal held that the advances were deemed dividends as the assessees failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the property was mortgaged for the company's benefit and that the loans were not for individual benefit.