Bombay High Court Grants Anil Ambani Temporary Relief from Income Tax Actions

The Bombay High Court has temporarily shielded Anil Ambani from coercive actions by the Income Tax Department, which alleges tax evasion linked to undisclosed foreign assets. The court's decision comes as Ambani challenges the application of the Black Money Act and seeks clarity on the proceedings against him. This development raises questions about the ongoing legal battles surrounding high-profile figures and their financial dealings. Stay tuned for more updates on this unfolding case.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jun 10, 2026, 14:45 IST

Interim Relief Granted to Anil Ambani

The Bombay High Court has issued a temporary reprieve for Anil Ambani, the Chairman of Reliance Group, instructing the Income Tax Department to refrain from any coercive measures against him for the time being. This situation arises from a show-cause notice that the Income Tax Department issued, which suggests potential prosecution under the Black Money Act.

Tax officials allege that Ambani has evaded taxes amounting to approximately Rs 420 crore, linked to undisclosed foreign assets exceeding Rs 814 crore, reportedly held in two Swiss bank accounts. The department's assessment order from March 2022 indicated that Ambani possessed these undisclosed foreign assets under the Black Money Act's regulations.

During the court proceedings, a division bench comprising Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and R.N. Laddha reviewed arguments from both parties. As the Income Tax Department requested more time to respond, the court granted interim protection, stating that no coercive actions should be taken against Ambani in the interim. "The appeal can proceed, and orders can be made accordingly. However, we clarify that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, including prosecution and penalties, until the hearing and final resolution of this writ petition," the High Court stated.

Ambani is contesting specific provisions of the Black Money Act, along with a 2015 notification from the Central Government that permits the law's retrospective application. Senior advocate Iqbal Chagla, representing Ambani, contended that criminal proceedings should not have commenced while the matter is still under review by the appellate authority in civil proceedings.

The court also inquired whether Anil Ambani had addressed the show-cause notice. His legal counsel informed the bench that a response had been submitted, along with the requested documents, prior to providing a comprehensive reply. Ambani’s legal team argued that the authorities are required to offer clear justifications and issue a detailed order before proceeding with such actions.