A tax dispute is a ladder: assessing officer, first appeal, tribunal, High Court. Most companies argue each rung like it is the only one — and lose the war on the record they created at the bottom. We build tax positions from the assessment stage as if the ITAT will read them, because it probably will.
Tax litigation begins when the department disagrees with your return — an addition in assessment, a disallowed expense, a transfer-pricing adjustment, a GST demand on classification or input credit. From there it climbs: Commissioner (Appeals), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the final fact-finding body), and the High Court on questions of law.
Two things decide outcomes. First, the record: facts and documents are largely frozen after the tribunal, so what you file at assessment stage echoes for a decade. Second, position quality: a genuinely arguable position, documented contemporaneously, survives forums; an aggressive one with thin paper collapses expensively — with interest and penalty riding on it. And since April 2026, legacy matters run under the 1961 Act while new years run under the Income-tax Act, 2025 — both tracks need managing at once.
An assessment order or GST demand has landed with additions you believe are wrong — and the appeal clock (typically 30 days) is already running.
A recurring position is being challenged year after year — transfer pricing, royalty, disallowances, ITC — and piecemeal replies are producing piecemeal losses.
A search, survey or investigation has concluded and prosecution or reassessment notices are expected. This is a different game with different rules; get specialist help before statements are recorded.
Replies to notices and questionnaires built as the future appeal record — facts evidenced, law organised, and nothing conceded in writing that cannot be defended in the ITAT.
Faceless-appeal written submissions that actually persuade: issue-wise grounds, paper books, and precedent from your own jurisdictional High Court placed first.
Tribunal appeals and cross-objections, stay applications, and High Court writs and appeals on substantial questions of law — argued with counsel briefed on a complete record.
TP adjustment defence coordinated with your TP study and documentation — because the litigation position and the compliance file must tell the same story.
Advance rulings for proposed transactions, and pre-transaction opinions that document a defensible position before the department ever asks — the cheapest litigation is the one that never starts.
First appeals: 1–3 years in the faceless system. ITAT: 2–4 years. High Court: longer, on law points. GST adjudication and first appeal are typically faster — 6–18 months. Stay of demand is sought early wherever recovery threatens operations.
Matters are quoted per forum and stage after reviewing the order under challenge. Transfer-pricing and multi-year bundles are quoted as a programme with a single strategy across years — almost always cheaper than fighting each year separately.
The ITAT is the last fact-finding authority. Facts not proved by the tribunal stage are effectively lost, however good your High Court counsel is. Front-load evidence and documentation.
Appeals do not stop recovery by themselves. Without a stay application — and the standard 20% deposit strategy for income-tax — bank accounts get attached while you argue. Sequence the stay first.
A stand taken for income-tax that contradicts your GST or TP position will be found and used. Large companies need one litigation register and one consistent voice across forums.
We dissect the order line by line: what is fact, what is law, what is simply wrong. You get prospects in writing — strong, arguable, hopeless — before any appeal is filed.
Stay and deposit strategy executed first, so the business is not funding the department while the appeal runs.
Each forum argued on the record built for the next one. Settlement windows — including Vivad-style schemes when open — are evaluated at every stage on numbers.
Favourable orders are given effect (refunds, rectifications); recurring issues are fixed at the compliance end so the same addition stops repeating.
Generally 30 days from service of the order/demand notice for CIT(A) appeals, with condonation available for sufficient cause — but do not plan on condonation. GST first appeals carry a three-month window with a further one-month condonable period. We diarise from the date of service, not the date you forward it to us.
Recovery can proceed unless stayed. The standard administrative practice for income-tax is a stay on deposit of 20% of the disputed demand; GST appeals require a 10% pre-deposit. We file stay applications with the appeal, not after the first recovery notice.
Pending and legacy matters continue under the 1961 Act; Tax Year 2026-27 onwards runs under the 2025 Act with renumbered provisions. Correspondence between old and new sections must be mapped carefully in every filing — we maintain that mapping for each client matter.
Sometimes — through settlement mechanisms when a scheme is open, or practically, by conceding weak issues and fighting strong ones. A mixed order ages better than a total war: tribunals respect appellants who concede what should be conceded.
Completely. Prosecution (and search/survey fallout) involves personal liberty, compounding decisions and statement strategy. It is handled by senior members of the team, separately from the assessment track, from the first notice.
Yes — adjudication replies, ASMT/DRC proceedings, first appeals and tribunal matters, especially ITC denial, classification and place-of-supply disputes, which are the three big GST battlegrounds for large companies.
A binding ruling on a proposed transaction from the Board for Advance Rulings (income-tax) or the AAR (GST). Worth it when the transaction is large, the position is genuinely uncertain, and certainty is bankable — lenders and investors price it. Not worth it when the law is already clearly in your favour.
Yes — matters commonly come to us after a poor first order. We audit the existing record, identify what can still be repaired on appeal (facts are hard to repair; law and presentation usually can), and reset the strategy for the remaining forums.
Talk to a partner about your situation — no pitch, no obligation. If we're not the right firm for it, we'll tell you that too.
Request a consultation