Justice Yashwant Verma has recently been under public scrutiny. Since i am also a part of the public, I chose my legal way and I examined last 106 judgments authored by him.
I used the tool from @Lawlens_IN to create the database and here is what i found-
First thing first, these are case in which the authored the judgement. In last few months, he has been part of benches that have pronounced orders in almost 350 cases. There was no point taking judgements not authored by him so i excluded them.
So, lets proceed.
Over the past year, his docket largely comprised taxation matters, especially reassessment and search/seizure cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Corporations dominated as petitioners in his court at 54.7%, followed by government agencies at 27.3% and individuals at 16%.
Government agencies as respondents, defended 70.8% of matters, while corporations and individuals defended 23.6% and 3.8% of cases, respectively. Petitioners had a 64.2% success rate, with relief granted in 68 cases, denied in 30.2% of cases, 5.6% received partial relief.
A closer look at the nature of the disputes indicates that reassessment matters dominated, with 45 cases arising under Section 148, 28 cases under Section 147 concerning income escaping assessment, and 18 cases related to search and seizure assessments under Section 153A.
The data suggests a strong judicial inclination towards strict scrutiny of tax enforcement mechanisms. With 64% of rulings favoring petitioners, predominantly private entities, it is evident that Justice Verma found multiple reassessment orders to be procedurally flawed.
The government frequently lost cases, particularly in reassessment challenges under Sections 148 and 147. Many of these orders were struck down due to procedural lapses, reinforcing a judicial approach that places due process at the center of tax administration.
I examined 22 cases where private individuals were parties (No Corp or Govt). The petitioner succeeded in 63.64% of these cases, with full relief granted in 14 matters. Relief was denied in 27.27% of cases, while partial relief was granted in 9.09%.
Reassessment challenges proved to be particularly successful, with an approval rate of 90%. In Subhash Chander Dabas, the court quashed a ₹24.8 crore notice due to factual inconsistencies. In Rohit Kumar’s case, a ₹46 lakh reassessment was struck down for failing to meet the ₹50 lakh threshold and lacking the necessary sanction.
A recurring theme in his decisions is his emphasis on procedural rigor. In Shaily Juneja and Primary Real Estate Investments, reassessment notices were invalidated due to the absence of a mandatory Section 143(2) notice. In Abhinav Jindal HUF, the court nullified a reassessment on the grounds of improper sanction.
Even in tax disputes beyond reassessment, petitioners found success in securing relief. In Ravi Kumar Sinha, an ₹86 crore ESPS tax was reduced to face value, considering lock-in restrictions. In Akash Poddar, the court reclassified a ₹3 crore settlement as capital gains, securing full relief for the petitioner.
In some cases, a balanced approach was clear. In Kanwaljeet Kaur (2025), involving over 70 reassessment petitions, the court avoided quashing notices outright. Instead, it instructed Assessing Officers to reassess cases per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal, protecting petitioner rights while maintaining the administrative process.
In matters where the petitioner lost, A matter involved revision of payment allowance of Rashtriya Pariyojna Nirman Nigam Limited employees, which was dismissed by a single judge, and in appeal, was also dismissed by the bench of Justice Verma on the ground that this is prerogative of executive and cannot be interfered by the judiciary.
Other matters involved initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The Bench declined to interfere, stating that initiating proceedings under Section 153C does not require a connection between the searched and non-searched entities, and the petitioner was liable to be searched per the Supreme Court decision in Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia.
The case concerning Dr. CP Rai’s removal from NIHFW, who was reinstated by a Single Judge, reflects an empathetic approach toward petitioners. NIHFW appealed, but Justice Yashwant Verma found only three of seven charges proven, deeming the removal disproportionate, thus upholding the Single Judge’s verdict.
The overall pattern emerging from these judgments indicates that Justice Verma’s court ruled in favor of petitioners in 72.73% of individual tax cases, with full or partial relief granted in 16 out of 22 cases. The government, in particular, struggled to defend reassessment matters, losing 13 out of 19 cases.
His rulings reflect a strong commitment to procedural fairness and a heightened level of judicial oversight in taxation disputes. The high success rate of reassessment challenges suggests a persistent concern over procedural deficiencies in tax administration.
Whenever i talk to friends who work at Delhi HC, they’ve always said that Justice Yashwant Verma was a petitioner friendly judge, and i feel that the data shows the same. Its surprising to me that the Delhi HC Bar did not utter a word in his issue.
(This article has been compiled from the tweet thread posted by @DeadlyLaw on April 03, 2025, with minor edits to improve readability and conform to HinduPost style guide)
