Tax litigation covers any dispute between an assessee and the Income Tax Department — from a Section 143(2) scrutiny notice (new Section 270(2) Act 2025) to a Supreme Court SLP. You need a litigation specialist the moment you receive any notice — scrutiny, reassessment u/s 148/148A (new Sec 281/280), search authorisation u/s 132 (new Sec 247), penalty u/s 270A/271 (new Sec 467/470), or a draft assessment order u/s 144C (new Sec 285). Early intervention often closes the matter at AO stage; delay forces the appellate ladder — CIT(A)/NFAC → ITAT → High Court → Supreme Court — with each stage adding 1–4 years and significant cost.

The Income Tax Act 2025 (effective 1 April 2026) replaces the 1961 Act. Substantive litigation principles remain identical — only section numbers, drafting, and structure changed. Examples: Section 143(3) → Section 270(3); Section 147 → Section 279; Section 148 → Section 281; Section 144B faceless assessment → Section 273; Section 153A search assessment → Section 294; Section 246A appeal to CIT(A) → Section 356; Section 253 ITAT → Section 361; Section 260A High Court → Section 365; Section 271(1)(c) and 270A → Section 467/470. All pending appeals and cases continue under the old Act provisions; new orders post 1 April 2026 use the new Act. Case-law continuity is preserved by the General Clauses Act 1897 and a saving provision in Act 2025.

Under Section 144B (Act 1961) / Section 273 (Act 2025), assessments are conducted by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) through a randomly allocated Assessment Unit (AU), with quality input from Verification Unit (VU), Technical Unit (TU), and Review Unit (RU/FAIU). All communication is via the e-Filing portal — no physical hearing unless a video conference is requested. Defence requires meticulous documentation, point-wise reply to each allegation in the show-cause notice (SCN), case-law backed legal submissions, and a strong reply to the draft assessment order before final order is passed. Personal hearing through VC must be specifically requested in writing where stakes are high — VC requests are seldom denied.

Typical broad timelines: CIT(A) / NFAC — 12 to 30 months from filing of Form 35 to disposal; ITAT — 24 to 48 months from Form 36 filing to final order; High Court (Sec 260A / 365) — 36 to 72 months for tax reference; Supreme Court SLP — 36 to 84 months. Faceless appeal scheme has reduced CIT(A) timelines to 9–18 months for many cases. Stay of demand applies all through the appellate ladder, subject to typical 20% pre-deposit rule (CBDT Instruction 1914 + OM 31.07.2017 amended).

As per CBDT Instruction No. 1914 read with Office Memorandum dated 31 July 2017 (amended 2020 and later), where an appeal is pending before CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee can get stay of demand on payment of 20% of the disputed demand. The stay application is filed before the Assessing Officer (not CIT(A)). Lower or no pre-deposit can be granted by PCIT/CCIT in genuine cases — high-pitch assessment (addition is ≥2x of returned income), strong prima facie case (covered by binding HC/SC ruling), or genuine financial hardship. For ITAT, stay jurisdiction lies with ITAT itself under Section 254(2A) / 363(2A) Act 2025.

FAIU = Faceless Assessment Impact Unit (now reorganised as Review Unit / RU under the NaFAC framework). The FAIU/RU is responsible for quality review of draft assessment orders before they are finalised. They check legal sustainability, factual correctness, computation accuracy, and consistency with Departmental positions. If RU recommends modifications, the AU revises the draft. From the assessee's perspective, FAIU defence means anticipating likely RU objections and pre-empting them in your reply to the show-cause notice itself — strong case-law citation, computation worksheets, and an evidence index.

Section 263 (1961) / Section 376 (2025) is suo moto revision by the PCIT/CIT against an order which is "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue" — i.e., adverse to the assessee. The PCIT issues a show-cause notice and can set aside or modify the AO's order to enhance tax. Section 264 (1961) / Section 377 (2025) is revision in favour of the assessee — application by the taxpayer (or suo moto) where the order is unjustly prejudicial. Strict 1-year limitation. Cannot be invoked where appeal lies. Section 264 is a powerful equitable remedy often overlooked by taxpayers — particularly useful for small additions where appeal cost-benefit is unfavourable.

Post-Finance Act 2021 amendments (and continued under Act 2025 as Sec 280/281), reassessment now follows a two-stage process: (a) Section 148A enquiry — AO issues notice with information suggesting income escapement, gives 7–30 days reply window, and considers reply before deciding to reopen; (b) Section 148 notice — formal reopening if AO is satisfied. Time limits: 3 years for normal escaped income, 10 years for escaped income ≥ ₹50 lakh in the form of asset/expenditure. Sanction of PCIT (3-year cases) or PCCIT/CBDT (10-year cases) is mandatory. Defence focuses on jurisdiction, sanction validity, change of opinion (Kelvinator ratio), and time-bar.

Transfer pricing (TP) litigation arises from TP adjustment by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on international transactions or specified domestic transactions. The AO incorporates the TPO order in a Draft Assessment Order under Section 144C (new Sec 285). The "eligible assessee" — foreign company or assessee with TP adjustment — has 30 days to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), a collegium of three Commissioners. DRP issues binding directions within 9 months. Appeal lies directly to ITAT (not CIT(A)). TP defence requires economic analysis, comparability study, FAR analysis, and benchmarking adjustments (TNMM, CUP, RPM, CPM, PSM). Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) and Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under DTAA are also available as proactive remedies.

Yes. Compounding of offences u/s 279 (1961) / Section 480 (Act 2025) is permitted as per CBDT Compounding Guidelines (latest 2022). Both technical and substantive offences can be compounded — the dichotomy of Category A and Category B has been relaxed. Compounding fee depends on the offence — typically 100–300% of tax sought to be evaded for substantive offences; 3–5% per month delay for TDS-related defaults. Application to PCIT with prosecution sanction details. Compounding closes the criminal proceeding upon payment, but does not affect the underlying tax demand or penalty.

The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA) is a separate statute applicable to undisclosed foreign income and foreign assets of Indian residents. Tax @ 30% flat (Section 3), penalty @ 300% (Section 41), and prosecution u/s 50/51 with imprisonment up to 7 years are the key consequences. Schedule FA in ITR-2/3 is the disclosure mechanism — non-disclosure or under-disclosure triggers BMA. Defence requires documentary trail of source of funds, residency analysis, beneficial ownership analysis, and DTAA / TRC backing where applicable. The Income Tax Act 2025 does not subsume the BMA — both run in parallel.

CIT(A) / NFAC appeal — 30 days from receipt of order, in Form 35, with appeal fee ₹250 to ₹10,000 depending on assessed income. ITAT appeal — 60 days from receipt of order, in Form 36, with appeal fee ₹500 to ₹10,000 (cross-objections in Form 36A — 30 days from receipt of notice of department appeal). High Court appeal u/s 260A (new Sec 365) — 120 days from receipt of ITAT order, only on substantial question of law. Supreme Court — within 90 days of HC order; no automatic right; SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution. Condonation of delay possible u/s 5 of Limitation Act with sufficient cause shown.

Vivad se Vishwas (DTVSV) is a periodic dispute resolution scheme — most recent being the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2024. It allows settlement of pending tax disputes (CIT(A), ITAT, HC, SC, writ, DRP, MA) by paying disputed tax amount with concessions on interest and penalty. Different rates for tax-only disputes versus interest/penalty-only disputes; lower rates for declarants with appeals filed by assessee, higher for departmental appeals. Currently no scheme is open. Other dispute resolution mechanisms — Interim Board for Settlement (IBS), replacement of Settlement Commission; e-DRC (e-Dispute Resolution Committee) for small taxpayers (Sec 245MA / 386); DRP for transfer pricing & foreign company; and Advance Ruling (BAR / AAR) for prospective tax certainty.

Search u/s 132 (new Sec 247) is initiated on satisfaction of authorising officer (PDGIT/DGIT/PDIT/DIT) based on credible information of undisclosed income/asset. Defence has multiple layers: (a) During search — proper recording of statements u/s 132(4) (new Sec 247(4)), no admission under coercion, panchnama copy collection, prohibitory order documentation; (b) Post-search — retraction of incorrect statement (within reasonable time + with evidence), engagement with Investigation Wing; (c) Assessment — defence in 6-year search assessment u/s 153A/153C (new Sec 294/295) — Abhisar Buildwell SC ratio mandates incriminating material for unabated years; (d) Penalty — Section 271AAB (new Sec 471) immunity if conditions met; (e) Prosecution — Section 276/278 (new Sec 477/479) defence and compounding.

Per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 (and earlier Circulars revising thresholds), the Department does not file appeals where tax effect is below specified limits — currently ITAT: ₹60 lakh, High Court: ₹2 crore, Supreme Court: ₹5 crore (subject to revision by future Circulars). Exceptions exist — adverse audit objection, prosecution-linked, retrospective amendment dispute, organised tax evasion, recurring revenue effect — even at lower thresholds. Knowing these limits helps in strategic settlement decisions and during interim hearings to seek dismissal of departmental appeal where below-threshold and no exception applies.

AIS (Annual Information Statement) and TIS (Taxpayer Information Summary) consolidate financial transaction data from multiple sources — banks, depositories, mutual funds, registrars, EPFO, etc. e-Verification Scheme 2021 allows the Department to reach out for clarification before formal assessment. From a litigation perspective: (a) AIS feedback mechanism must be used proactively to flag erroneous data; (b) any notice now invariably references AIS — defence requires AIS reconciliation; (c) reassessment u/s 148A (new Sec 280/281) is increasingly AIS-driven; (d) early engagement with e-Verification notice often prevents formal scrutiny.

Yes, fully remote engagement is possible. Faceless assessments under Sec 144B / 273 are designed for paperless, location-independent representation — submissions through the e-Filing portal, hearings by video conference. ITAT hearings are conducted in-person at Tribunal benches, but our Delhi/Mumbai presence allows full proxy representation under power of attorney and Form 49 ITAT. NRIs in 50+ countries — USA, UK, Canada, UAE, Singapore, Australia, Germany — successfully serviced through DSC/EVC remote support, time-zone coordinated calls, secure document sharing, and notarised authorisations. International Taxation Ward represents the AO jurisdiction for NRI cases, requiring specialised familiarity that we maintain.