https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/whats-new/ 2026-09-18T00:00:00Z CA Prabhakar Kumar, FCA (ICAI 560762) Indian income tax authorities, and whether each is still good law. https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-no-rule-prescribes-a-method-for-a-working-capital-or-risk-adjustment/ 2026-09-18T00:00:00Z

He is right on the first half and wrong on the second. No provision of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 prescribes a formula, a base, a period, a source of interest rates or any other method for computing a working capital adjustment or a risk adjustment. Rules 10A, 10AB, 10B, 10C, 10CA, 10D and 10TA were each read in full on this pass, and s.92F, and none of them does. But the absence of a method is no

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/wadhwa-group-holdings-v-pcit-43bh-prospective-from-ay-2024-25/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. Clause (h) of s.43B was inserted by the Finance Act 2023 with effect from 1 April 2024 and operates prospectively from AY 2024-25. For AY 2022-23 the Tribunal held the Commissioner could not found prejudice to the Revenue on the non-application of a provision that did not apply, and set the s.263 order aside.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/ug-upadhya-v-dit-133-6-roving-enquiry-widening-tax-base/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

A Division Bench held it is not. The object of a s.133(6) notice is to collect information useful for or relevant to an enquiry for widening the tax base and unearthing undisclosed money, and a demand for depositor details is within that object. The approval required by the second proviso had been obtained, and the notices were upheld.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/sudhir-sareen-v-cit-139-9-proof-of-tax-264/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. The Delhi High Court held that the power to extend time and to condone the delay in rectifying a defect under s.139(9) is conferred on the Assessing Officer, and the Commissioner in revision under s.264 is not the forum in which to ask for it for the first time. Where the assessee had not applied to the Assessing Officer at all, no fault could be found with the officer's order or with the Comm

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-rule-8d-substituted-with-effect-from-2-june-2016-the-two-limb-formula/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

That depends entirely on the previous year, because Rule 8D was substituted. THE DATE IS THE FIRST QUESTION: the departmental page for Rule 8D carries footnote 78, "Substituted by the IT (Fourteenth Amdt.) Rules, 2016, w.e.f. 2-6-2016", and footnote 79, "Omitted by the IT (Fourteenth Amdt.) Rules, 2016, w.e.f. 2-6-2016". As substituted, sub-rule (1) provides that where the Assessing Officer, havin

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-rule-11uae-fair-market-value-for-50b-fmv1-and-fmv2/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Under rule 11UAE two figures are computed and the higher is taken. Sub-rule (1) provides: "For the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 50B, the fair market value of the capital assets shall be the FMV1 determined under sub-rule (2) or FMV2 determined under sub-rule (3), whichever is higher." FMV1 looks at what was transferred and is computed as A+B+C+D-L, where A is the book value

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-rule-10ca-arms-length-range-thirty-fifth-to-sixty-fifth-percentile-and-the-median/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The range is built only where the dataset has six or more entries and the most appropriate method is not the profit split method or the other method. Rule 10CA(2) requires a dataset constructed by placing the prices in ascending order. Rule 10CA(4) then provides that where the most appropriate method applied is a method other than the method referred to in clause (d) or clause (f) of s.92C(1) and

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-rule-10b-1-e-and-10b-3-comparability-adjustments/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The right comes from rule 10B(3)(ii), read with rule 10B(1)(e)(iii); nothing in the Rules prescribes how either adjustment is computed. Rule 10B(3) is in two limbs and the word between them is "or": an uncontrolled transaction is comparable to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction if "(i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or betwee

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-bma-41-43-72c-penalty-and-the-transitional-year/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Section 41 provides that the Assessing Officer may direct that, in a case where tax has been computed under s.10 in respect of undisclosed foreign income and asset, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax if any payable by him, "a sum equal to three times the tax computed under that section". It is therefore a multiple of the tax computed under s.10, and it follows the s.10 co

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-bma-3-4-5-the-charge-and-its-scope/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

On s.3(1) and its proviso. The Act came into force on 1 July 2015 (s.1(3): "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, it shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 2015"). Section 3(1) charges tax "on every assessee for every assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2016 ... in respect of his total undisclosed foreign income and asset of the previous year at the rate of thirty

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-bma-15-rule-6-4-appeal-and-the-pre-deposit/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

On the part not objected to. Rule 6(4) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Rules, 2015, notified by G.S.R. 529(E) dated 2 July 2015, reads: "No appeal under sub-section (1) of section 15 shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal the assessee has paid the tax alongwith penalty and interest thereon on the amount of liability which has n

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-bma-10-11-assessment-and-the-time-limit/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Two years, and the exchange-of-information exclusion is capped. Section 11(1) provides that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be made under s.10 after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the notice under s.10(1) was issued by the Assessing Officer. Explanation 1 to s.11 excludes, in computing that period, (i) the time taken in reopening the whole or any p

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-92c-2-second-and-third-provisos-tolerance-band-and-1-april-2014/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

For a transaction undertaken on or after 1 April 2014 the second proviso does not apply, because the third proviso disapplies it — but the band itself has not gone. It has moved into rule 10CA(7) and it now operates only where the arm's length range machinery does not. The third proviso to s.92C(2) reads: "Provided also that where more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method, t

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-43-5-speculative-transaction-and-the-five-clauses-of-the-proviso/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Settlement without delivery is what makes a transaction speculative, and the proviso then takes five described kinds of transaction back out. The definition, as printed on the departmental Year 2021 edition, is that "speculative transaction" means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwis

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-32-1-second-proviso-180-days-and-the-half-year-depreciation-restriction/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The proviso is worded on BOTH events, and that is the whole fight. As printed on the most recent departmental edition, it reads: "Provided further that where an asset referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-234d-interest-on-excess-refund-rate-period-and-explanation-2/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Yes, on the conditions in sub-section (1). Section 234D charges simple interest where a refund is granted to the assessee under s.143(1) and either (a) no refund is due on regular assessment, or (b) the amount refunded under s.143(1) exceeds the amount refundable on regular assessment. The rate as printed on the departmental Year 2018 edition is one-half per cent, on the whole or the excess amount

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-144c-the-draft-assessment-order-and-the-machinery-of-sub-sections-1-to-5/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

He was obliged to serve one first, if the company is an eligible assessee and the variation is prejudicial. Section 144C(1), as printed on the departmental edition stamped Year 2025, reads: "The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-144c-the-clocks-thirty-days-one-month-and-nine-months-from-the-end-of-the-month/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Four clocks, and only one of them runs from a date. Section 144C(2) gives the eligible assessee thirty days "of the receipt by him of the draft order" to file acceptance with the Assessing Officer or objections with the Panel and the Assessing Officer — that one runs from the date of receipt. The other three run from the end of a month, and that is where the counting goes wrong. Section 144C(4): w

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-144c-8-and-10-what-the-dispute-resolution-panel-may-and-may-not-do/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

It can make your position worse; it cannot send the matter back; and the appeal lies to the Tribunal, not to the Commissioner (Appeals). Section 144C(8), as printed on the departmental edition stamped Year 2025, reads: "The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-144c-15-b-who-is-an-eligible-assessee-and-the-finance-act-2020-widening/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

It matters a great deal which year you are in. As s.144C(15)(b) stands on the departmental edition stamped Year 2025 it reads: "(b) 'eligible assessee' means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or a

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/srk-metals-v-state-of-assam-s15-s16-statutory-interest-determination/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The buyer must pay within the period agreed in writing or, absent agreement, before the appointed day, and the agreed period cannot exceed forty-five days from acceptance or deemed acceptance. Once that is breached, the buyer is statutorily liable to compound interest with monthly rests at three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India. The Court directed the authorities to determ

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/silpi-industries-v-ksrtc-msme-benefit-only-for-supplies-after-registration/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Those made after registration. The Supreme Court refused the appellant the benefit of the Act because there was no acceptable material to show that any supply of goods or rendering of services had taken place after it was registered as a unit under the MSMED Act. The Court also held that a counter-claim is maintainable before the statutory authorities under the Act.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/shree-jagdamba-emery-stone-v-ito-139-9-defect-outside-explanation/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. The Tribunal held that the enumeration of defects in the Explanation below s.139(9) is not exhaustive but only illustrative, so a document the Explanation does not name can still be a defect; but precisely because it is a defect within s.139(9), the assessee must be given the opportunity to rectify it before the consequence is visited on him. The department could not deny firm status on a defe

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/section-133c-rule-12d-prescribed-income-tax-authority/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Section 133C lets a prescribed income-tax authority issue a notice, for the purpose of verifying information already in its possession about a person, requiring that person to furnish information or documents verified in the manner specified. Rule 12D prescribes that authority as an income-tax authority not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax authorised by the Board to act as su

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/reddy-vanga-ventures-v-pcit-139-9-defect-on-wrong-facts/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The High Court quashed the orders invalidating the return and the order in revision, and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the turnover. Where the record, including the officer's own finding, showed that the turnover was below the threshold at which audit is required, the premise on which the return had been held defective under s.139(9) did not stand.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/rajeshkumar-mehta-v-ito-133-6-notice-never-received-148a/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Yes, on these facts. The Court held that the order under s.148A and the notice under s.148 were passed without application of mind, quashed and set aside both, and remanded the matter. The officer had simply repeated the allegation of non-response while ignoring the purchase invoices, bank statements and ledger confirmations filed with the reply.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/pushpa-v-ito-133-6-unauthorised-enquiry-letters-agra/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The Agra Bench held it does not. It found it undisputed that the enquiry letters were not authorised under any provision of the Act, adopted the reasoning in Amrik Singh, held that the reasons recorded were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction, and quashed the assessment orders as void ab initio.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/pme-power-solutions-v-dcit-invalid-return-144-not-143-3/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. The Tribunal held that once a return is treated as defective and invalid under s.139(9), the only recourse legally available to the Assessing Officer is to frame the assessment under s.144. An assessment under s.143(3) built on the income returned in a return the officer has himself declared invalid cannot stand, and the Tribunal quashed it.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/pattambi-service-co-op-bank-v-uoi-133-6-constitutional-validity/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Not on the grounds argued here. The Court held the petitioners had not established any constitutional infirmity in the sub-section or in the 1995 amendment, and declined interference. It treated the prior-approval requirement in the proviso as the in-built mechanism that keeps the power within bounds.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/niranjan-lal-gupta-v-ito-139-9-notice-never-issued/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. The Tribunal held that both returns were defective under s.139(9) because the self-assessment tax had not been paid, that the Assessing Officer should have directed the assessee to rectify the defect and had issued no defect notice at all, and that the assessment could not simply be built on the original return. The entire assessment was set aside and the officer directed to pass a fresh order

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/nbcc-india-v-state-of-west-bengal-msme-registration-reference-to-larger-bench/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Not without qualification. A two-Judge Bench set out the proposition as it appears in Mahakali Foods, held that the question had never been formulated, discussed or decided in the earlier cases, and read s.18 as speaking of 'any party to a dispute' rather than of a supplier. It said it was open to it to hold that Silpi Industries and Mahakali Foods are not binding precedents on the point, but chos

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/murali-export-house-v-cit-139-9-80hhc-certificate-curable/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. The Calcutta High Court, following its earlier decision in Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal, held that the defects listed in the Explanation to s.139(9) are illustrative and not exhaustive, and that the Assessing Officer retains the power to have a defect made good before the assessment is completed. The Court set aside the orders below and directed the deduction to be allowed provided the ce

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/mekkadampu-service-co-op-bank-v-jt-dit-272a-daily-rate/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

On these facts, no. The Cochin Bench reproduced its own earlier order in Kakoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which had held a penalty under s.272A(2)(c) valid where no reasonable cause within s.273B had been furnished for not answering the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), and, finding the facts identical, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding the penalty orders. All n

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/luxury-goods-retail-v-dcit-defective-not-invalid-carry-forward/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. The Tribunal held that a return filed manually within the due date under s.139(1) is a valid return, and that filing it on paper rather than electronically makes it at best a defective return and not an invalid one. Section 292B protects a return that substantially complies with the intent of the statute, and the carry-forward of the loss could not be refused on that ground.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/luxe-panel-distributors-v-addl-cmr-customs-trader-msme-priority-sector-lending/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

On the Kerala High Court's reading, no. Wholesale and retail trade was excluded from the MSMED Act in 2017, re-included by the Office Memorandum of 2 July 2021, and that re-inclusion was for the limited purpose of priority sector lending only. The Court refused a trader the micro-enterprise exemption in a Quality Control Order because, registration notwithstanding, nothing beyond priority sector l

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/landis-gyr-v-dcit-msmed-interest-ascertained-liability-book-profit-115jb/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No - and the Tribunal decided it by adoption. It noted that the issue raised in Ground No. 10 had been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case by its consolidated order dated 13 September 2017 for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, reproduced that order, and allowed the ground on the strength of it. The reasoning reproduced is that s.23 of the MSMED Act operates on the computation of

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/krishna-diagnostic-v-ito-133-6-reply-already-on-record-148a/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

It starts again, from the show-cause stage. The Court set aside the order dated 28 July 2022 under s.148A(d) and the consequential notice under s.148 of the same date, where the assessee had already told the officer, in answer to a s.133(6) notice, that the property had been purchased and not sold, and the reopening proceeded on the footing that it had been sold. Facts of that kind, already on the

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/kerala-state-bamboo-v-cit-139-9-proviso-condonation/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Yes. The proviso to s.139(9) lets the Assessing Officer condone the delay and treat the return as valid where the defect is cured after the fifteen days but before the assessment is made. The Kerala High Court held that the consequence of invalidity does not bite until the assessment is completed or the time for completing it runs out, so a cure filed before that date can still be accepted, and an

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/kechery-service-co-op-bank-v-cit-cib-133-6-time-to-comply/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Time, not exemption. A Division Bench applied the Supreme Court's construction of s.133(6) and upheld the notices calling for depositor names and addresses above a threshold, holding that no enquiry need have commenced before the power is used and that the approval of the Director or Commissioner is the only safeguard. It then granted the appellants two further months to comply.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/karnataka-bank-v-secretary-govt-of-india-hc-133-6-general-approval/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Neither. The Court held that an approval given in respect of the points or matters enumerated is good whether the information sought is specific or general - 'so long as that is so, the requirement of law is satisfied'. It also rejected the argument that information already available with the department need not be furnished again, and held that a bank's duty of secrecy yields to disclosure under

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/karnataka-bank-v-secretary-govt-of-india-133-6-no-proceeding-pending/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Yes. After the second proviso was inserted in 1995, s.133(6) may be invoked when no proceeding is pending at all. The Supreme Court held that no enquiry need have commenced before the sub-section is used, and that the only safeguard is the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner. An omnibus notice to a bank about its customers is within the power.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/kapoor-industries-v-cpc-no-139-9-notice-self-assessment-tax/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed that the money lying seized be appropriated towards the self-assessment tax liability. It recorded that no notice under s.139(9) had been issued by either the CPC or the jurisdictional Assessing Officer treating the return as defective, and that the assessee's request having been neither rejected nor decided amounted to acceptance.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/kalpakancherry-service-co-op-bank-v-addl-dit-272a-2-c-penalty/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

A penalty under s.272A(2)(c) that the Tribunal will not disturb. Twenty-one appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal held the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction to issue the notices, that the penalty orders were within the limitation in s.275(1)(c), and that no valid reason having been offered for not furnishing the information, there was no reasonable cause under s.273B.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/jcit-v-tata-cummins-139-9-order-cannot-decide-carry-forward/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. The Tribunal held that an order under s.139(9) can be made only to determine whether there was a defect in the return and whether it was rectified. An officer who goes on to rule on entitlement to carry forward the loss has made an assessment order, with the consequence that it is appealable. On the facts the Tribunal also held that the acknowledgement sheet is not part of the return prescribe

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/harmeet-singh-v-ito-133-6-approval-followed-amrik-singh/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The Delhi Bench did. It reproduced the reasoning in Amrik Singh on the second proviso to s.133(6) in full, decided the legal issue as squarely covered by that and the other precedents discussed, and quashed the reassessment as bad in law and illegal, declining to go into the merits.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/gujarat-state-civil-supplies-v-mahakali-foods-supplier-status-at-date-of-contract/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

On this judgment, no. The Supreme Court held that a party who was not a 'supplier' within s.2(n) of the MSMED Act on the date of entering into the contract cannot claim any benefit as a supplier under the Act. It also held that Chapter V of the MSMED Act overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and that an independent arbitration agreement does not bar a reference to the Facilitation Co

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/gram-sewa-viklang-sahayta-v-dcit-139-9-form-10b-cured/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Yes. The Tribunal held that the authorities were not justified in refusing the exemption under s.11 where the assessee had filed the audit report in answer to the defect notice under s.139(9) and before the assessment proceedings were completed. A highly technical view of the timing defeats the purpose of the requirement where substantive compliance has been made.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/francisco-pacheco-v-dcit-139-9-proviso-direction-to-condone/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to treat the returns as valid, by condoning the delay, for those years in which the defect had in fact been removed. The proviso to s.139(9) was the source of the direction: where the defect is cured before the assessment is made, the delay can be condoned and the return treated as valid.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/enanalloor-service-co-op-bank-v-ito-intelligence-133-6-who-may-issue/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Yes. A Division Bench held that the expression 'income-tax authorities' is of wide amplitude and also includes the Assessing Officer, that the s.133(6) procedure is akin to a survey, and that the powers are in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income. On who may issue, the Bench adopted the Kerala High Court's earlier judgment in Kodur

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/electronfab-engineering-v-ito-139-9-corrected-return-115baa/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The Tribunal held that it does. Form 10-IC filed on 2 December 2024 and the corrected return filed on 6 December 2024 in answer to the defect notice sufficiently demonstrated the intention to opt for the concessional regime, and the procedural lapse in not exercising the option in the original return could not defeat the substantive claim where the statutory conditions were otherwise met.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/dr-vs-chauhan-v-dit-investigation-133-6-wrong-section-quoted/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. The Court held that a notice issued under a wrongly cited or non-existent provision is not for that reason invalid if the authority had the power under an appropriate provision. A letter purporting to be under 'section 133(1A)' was sustained as referable to s.133(6) read with s.135. The petitions were dismissed, and also as barred by laches after a two-year delay.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/dhruv-anand-v-state-of-up-msme-office-memorandum-delayed-payment-goods/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The Allahabad High Court held it is not. The Office Memorandum relied on is specifically in respect of lending and not for any other purpose, and where the dispute concerns a supply of goods for which payment has been delayed the memorandum is 'not at all applicable'. The remedy is the one the MSMED Act provides under ss.15, 17 and 18, and the criminal proceeding against the buyer was quashed on t

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/dbs-financial-services-v-m-george-133-6-before-the-1995-amendment/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. This decision construed s.133(6) as it stood before the Finance Act 1995, when the sub-section spoke only of 'any proceeding' and had no second proviso. On that text the Court held the proceeding must be one in existence at the material time and that fishing information unrelated to any proceeding was not contemplated. The 1995 amendment inserted the words 'enquiry or' and the second proviso,

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/cit-v-rai-bahadur-bissesswarlal-motilal-139-9-explanation-illustrative/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. The Calcutta High Court held that the defects specified in s.139(9) are illustrative and not exhaustive. The corollary is the one that helps the taxpayer: because the provision is a curative one, an omission such as the audit report of a trust not being filed with the return can be made good during the assessment proceedings, and the officer cannot then ignore the report or the return.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/chennithala-service-co-op-bank-v-ito-tds-133-6-enquiry-not-proceeding/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No. The Court held that an exemption from deduction under s.194A(3)(viia) does not carry with it any exemption from furnishing information under s.133(6). It rejected the jurisdictional challenge because the notice had been issued after obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner, and dismissed the petition.

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/cbdt-letter-12-december-2017-defective-returns-cass-144/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

The Board's letter states that under the proviso to s.139(9) an assessee can rectify the defect until the assessment order is passed, provided the officer condones the delay, and directs that in pending cases where the defect has not been rectified the officer is immediately to initiate proceedings under s.144, and that where the defect is not removed by the time of passing the assessment order th

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/bosch-ltd-v-acit-msmed-s23-interest-on-delayed-payment-not-deductible/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

No, and the Tribunal decided it by adoption rather than by reasoning. Counsel accepted that an identical issue had arisen in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11, and the Bench reproduced its earlier order of 16 September 2020, which held that s.23 of the MSMED Act specifically provides that interest paid to micro, small and medium enterprises on account of delayed payment is not al

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/anupam-industries-v-state-level-industry-facilitation-council-s15-registration/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Section 15 obliges the buyer to pay by the date agreed in writing and, where there is no such agreement, before the appointed day, which is fifteen days from acceptance or deemed acceptance; the proviso caps any agreed period at forty-five days. On the facts, the supplier's registration post-dated the invoices by a wide margin, the invoices running from 17 May 2013 to 15 July 2015 against registra

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/amrik-singh-v-ito-133-6-enquiry-without-prior-approval/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

Not without the approval required by the second proviso. The Tribunal found that no proceeding was pending when the enquiry letter went out, that nothing on record showed the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner had been taken, and that the letter itself made no mention of any approval. Exercising the power in that state of affairs was held to be an illegal exercise of power, and the rea

https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/acit-v-prime-securities-139-9-signature-defect-cured/ 2026-09-17T00:00:00Z

A defect you can cure - decided on the preponderance of judicial opinion. The Tribunal recorded that the issue is one on which more than one view is possible but that the preponderance of judicial opinion is more in favour of the assessee, and directed that the assessee be treated as having filed a defective return on 31 December 1991 which was cured on 15 October 1992, so that the return stands a