Which cases are most cited on Section 18?

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT (317 ITR 433) — 202 citing judgments; Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (38 SOT 553) — 37 citing judgments; CIT v. Federal Bank (301 ITR 188) — 19 citing judgments; Kannur District Cooperative Bank v. CIT (365 ITR 343) — 19 citing judgments; Delhi in Commissioner of Income-tax–III v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (16 Taxmann.com 350) — 10 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 18?

BharatTax indexes 27 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 18 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 18 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 18 of the Income Tax Act?

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT (317 ITR 433) is the decision most relied on for Section 18, cited in 202 judgments. An inordinately delayed order, especially one passed without proper notice, is vitiated and liable to be recalled and heard afresh. Such orders, passed with unwarranted delay or without due notice, constitute a violation of natural justice, rendering them invalid.

The decision most relied on for Section 18 is Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT (317 ITR 433), cited in 202 of the 27 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 18

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court

202

citing judgments

An inordinately delayed order, especially one passed without proper notice, is vitiated and liable to be recalled and heard afresh. Such orders, passed with unwarranted delay or without due notice, constitute a violation of natural justice, rendering them invalid.

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. ACIT

38 SOT 553 · 2010 · ITAT

citing judgments

A claim for amortization of premium is allowable as a debit to the Profit and Loss account, provided the assessee has the power to make such a debit. This is supported by various Tribunal decisions and Board Instructions.

CIT v. Federal Bank

301 ITR 188 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

Kannur District Cooperative Bank v. CIT

365 ITR 343 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Delhi in Commissioner of Income-tax–III v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd.

16 Taxmann.com 350 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.

291 ITR 137 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

Satpal & Sons (HUF) v. ACIT

85 Taxmann.com 283 · 2017 · Reported

citing judgments

Cheftalk Food and Hospitality Services (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

165 Taxmann.com 415 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v. Asstt. CIT

238 Taxmann 423 · Reported

citing judgments

Madhuri Sameer Gokhale v. Addl.Joint ITO

172 Taxmann.com 696 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 18

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 22(1), CHENNAI vs. EZHUMALAI, THIRUKAZHUKUNDRAM

ITA 4108/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4108/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, V Ezhumalai, Non Corporate Ward- S 1123, Ponpatharkoodam, 22(1), Tambaram Gangai Amman Koil Street, Thirukazhukundram, Chengalpattu – 603405 Pan: Acipe8113C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. V Aswathy – Jcit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

SURESH KUMAR,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, W-4, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/CHANDI/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain,CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 28Section 56

SRI VISHNU VILAS SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA ,BALLARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, , BALLARI

ITA 1515/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S. DEVISHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 5782/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 282ASection 41(1)

M/S. DEVISHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 5781/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 282ASection 41(1)

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

ITA 172/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

ITA 596/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR