Section 100

Section 100 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 100, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd v PCIT — Chapter X-A invoked on an NCLT-sanctioned demerger: Rule issued because no appeal lies, and the s.144BA reference, the directions and the assessments stayed High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The department has invoked GAAR on a demerger that the NCLT sanctioned after notice to the income-tax authorities, and s.72A(4) expressly allowed the loss to move with the undertaking. I have no right of appeal against the reference or the directions. What can I actually do?
  You go to the High Court under Article 226, and the Bombay High Court has said in terms that the absence of an appeal is itself a reason to entertain the writ. On 19 December 2025 it issued Rule on a petition challenging a s.144BA reference dated 31 March 2025 and directions dated 30 October 2025 invoking Chapter X-A on an NCLT-sanctioned demerger, recording that it was "mindful of the fact that there is no provisions for an Appeal for impugning the reference ... or the directions ... invoking the provisions of Chapter X-A of the IT Act". It found a strong prima facie case and granted interim relief staying the reference, the directions and the assessment proceedings for AYs 2022-23 and 2023-24. Two arguments carried that interim finding: that Chapter X-A could never have been invoked once a competent authority, the NCLT, had sanctioned the demerger after notice to the income-tax authorities who raised no objection; and that s.72A(4) expressly permits the transfer of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the demerged undertaking, so that what the Act itself allows cannot be an impermissible avoidance arrangement.
• Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla v PCIT High CourtHelps departmentUnder appeal
  The AO invoked GAAR even though a specific anti-avoidance section covers my transaction. Can he do that?
  Yes, on this ruling. Chapter X-A is not shut out because a specific anti-avoidance rule occupies part of the field: s.95(1) opens with a non-obstante clause, which displaces the usual presumption that the special provision excludes the general one, so GAAR can supersede a SAAR. The Court also refused to interfere at the initiation stage because s.144BA gives the assessee a reference to the Principal Commissioner and the Approving Panel.
• DCIT, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai v Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Ltd ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Approving Panel held that my client's arrangement is NOT an impermissible avoidance arrangement, but the Assessing Officer has taxed the same transaction under another section anyway. Can he do that?
  The Mumbai Tribunal did not decide the wide question, but it held that the Assessing Officer could not, while giving effect to the statutory process under section 144BA, proceed on a factual premise diametrically opposed to the findings returned by the Approving Panel on the very arrangement referred to it. It then dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the narrower ground that a company buying back its own shares, which must then be extinguished, does not 'receive' property within section 56(2)(x) at all.
• Statutory position — sections 100 and 101: Chapter X-A applies in addition to or in lieu of any other basis, and only in accordance with prescribed guidelines CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  Can the department run GAAR and a specific anti-avoidance provision on the same transaction, and is there anything that limits how GAAR is applied?
  Section 100 provides that the provisions of Chapter X-A shall apply in addition to, or in lieu of, any other basis for determination of tax liability — so GAAR is not an alternative of last resort and can be invoked alongside, or instead of, a specific charging or anti-avoidance provision. Section 101 provides that the Chapter shall be applied in accordance with such guidelines and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, and it is under that section that rules 10U to 10UC are made.
• Statutory position — s.95: the gateway into Chapter X-A, the years it reaches, and the Explanation that lets the department attack one STEP of an otherwise genuine transaction CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer has written that he proposes to invoke Chapter X-A. Which provision actually gives him that power, from which assessment year does it bite, and can he pick on a single step of a transaction that as a whole was done for real commercial reasons?
  Section 95(1) is the gateway, and it does two things: it opens with "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act", so Chapter X-A overrides the rest of the Act, and it allows an arrangement to be "declared to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement" with the tax consequences then determined under the Chapter. Section 95(2) confines the whole Chapter to "any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2018" — that is AY 2018-19 onwards, and nothing earlier. The Explanation is the sting: the Chapter "may be applied to any step in, or a part of, the arrangement as they are applicable to the arrangement", so the officer does not have to condemn your whole transaction; he can isolate one step inside it.
• Statutory position — s.96: what makes an arrangement impermissible — the main-purpose test, the four tainted elements, and the s.96(2) presumption that shifts the burden onto you CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Commissioner's notice under s.144BA(2) says my arrangement is an impermissible avoidance arrangement. What exactly does the Revenue have to establish, and who has to prove what?
  Section 96(1) is a two-limb test and BOTH limbs must be satisfied. The arrangement must be one "the main purpose of which is to obtain a tax benefit", AND it must additionally have at least one of four tainted elements — rights or obligations not ordinarily created between persons dealing at arm's length; misuse or abuse of the provisions of the Act; lacking or deemed to lack commercial substance under s.97, in whole or in part; or being entered into or carried out by means or in a manner not ordinarily employed for bona fide purposes. Section 96(2) then supplies a presumption that works against you: if the main purpose of a STEP in, or a part of, the arrangement is to obtain a tax benefit, the whole arrangement is presumed to have been entered into for that main purpose — "unless it is proved to the contrary by the assessee" — even though the main purpose of the whole arrangement was not a tax benefit.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.