HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
SLP (Civil) Diary No. 31436 of 2026 / Connected Diary No. 32457 of 2026
No separate citation stated in the source ·
115BBE
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2 judicial members · Ujjal Bhuyan · Atul S. Chandurkar
01 · Facts of the case
The taxpayer challenged a Kerala High Court decision, with a connected diary matter. Counsel confined the challenge to a 30% rather than 60% tax rate under section 115BBE.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The rate position is counsel’s restricted submission. The Supreme Court did not resolve the applicable rate or its temporal operation.
Source: paragraphs 2 / PDF pages 1
03 · Judicial decision
Delay was condoned. Notice was issued, returnable on 7 September 2026, and no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner in the meanwhile.
Source: paragraphs 1,3-4 / PDF pages 1
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Taxpayer obtained interim protection; merits undecided
Delay was condoned. Notice was issued, returnable on 7 September 2026, and no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner in the meanwhile.
No final tax-merits ruling in this order
Source: paragraphs 3-4 / PDF pages 1
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
The order does not hold that 30% applies, nor does it grant a refund or final reduction. Its wording uses “per annum” in recording the submission; do not convert that recital into a substantive tax-rate rule. Later docket status requires verification.
Source: paragraphs 2-4 / PDF pages 1
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete identified source PDF: 1 pages. Original bytes preserved.
- Historical procedural status as of the order date only. No assertion that an interim direction remains operative today; inspect later docket orders before relying on it.
- Submissions recited in this order are not final findings.
- No citation printed in the source order
- Not stated in the reviewed order
Statutory scope
Current statutory equivalence and applicability under the Income-tax Act, 2025 have not been verified.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Subsequent appeals, review proceedings, stays, reversals and later judicial treatment have not been comprehensively checked. This note is not a citator status certificate.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- official record of proceedings — PDF 1 pages
SHA-256: 5d53a8babcea03cde290cc31a018532ed2ecf68396860c18457d91136f00d5d9
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.