SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 684/2026 Diary No. 32032 / 2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking the introduction of a "creamy layer" mechanism for the income-tax exemption granted to Scheduled Tribes residing in specified areas and States under the Income Tax Act, 2025. The petitioner sought a direction to restrict the benefit to economically weaker tribals and exclude affluent beneficiaries. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana allowed petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay to withdraw the petition with the liberty to approach the Centre and the relevant Parliamentary Committee.
Case Title : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Radhika Roy
Case Number : Diary No. 34735/2026
The Income Tax Department has challenged a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings against NDTV founders Dr. Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy over interest-free loans received from RRPR Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The loans included about ₹21 crore advanced to Prannoy Roy and about ₹71 crore advanced to Radhika Roy. The Special Leave Petition is likely to be heard by a vacation bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Alok Aradhe on June 30, 2026.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Gemological Institute of America Inc.
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.945 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 332
The Bombay High Court has upheld relief granted to Gemological Institute of America Inc. (GIA US) in a dispute over royalty payments received from its Indian subsidiary. The court ruled that royalty amounts bona fide refunded pursuant to a CBDT-approved Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) could not be brought to tax in the hands of the US entity because the amounts did not ultimately belong to it. A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Income Tax Department. The appeals arose from assessment years between 2010-11 and 2017-18.
Case Title : Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.2959 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 336
On 16 June, the Bombay High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot reopen an assessment after four years when the taxpayer has already disclosed all material facts fully and truly and allowed a writ petition filed by Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla set aside the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the order rejecting objections, and the consequential show cause notice and draft assessment order. The judges observed: “The Respondents have erred in equating the Petitioner as the 'enterprise' and, consequently, holding that it is owned by P&O Ports (Chennai) Ltd., Mauritius, which is not a company registered in India.”
Case Title : Accost Media LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai & Connected Appeal
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 753 of 2025 with Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 25904 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 360
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), holding that the tribunal failed to adjudicate a taxpayer's jurisdictional objection alleging non-compliance with the mandatory assessment procedure. The court ruled that the issue went to the root of the matter and required adjudication by the tribunal. A division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed, "Even otherwise, on merits, the ITAT was required to consider and appreciate the documentary evidence as sought to be produced by the AppellantAssessee to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, and hence an opportunity to appreciate the aforesaid evidence in its entirety needs to be given to the Appellant-Assessee. We are therefore of the view that the impugned order of the ITAT dated 10th December 2024, hence is required to be set aside considering the jurisdictional issue raised by the Appellant-Assessee. The same goes to the root of the matter and has to be adjudicated."
Unit Owners, Not Society, Must Challenge Individual Property Tax Demands: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Madanmohan M. Kotia & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. connected with Kotia Nirman Co-operative Commercial Premises Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1840 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 362
The Bombay High Court has held that after the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) issued separate property tax demand notices to individual unit owners, any grievance regarding the assessment, penalty or sewerage tax became an individual dispute. The court held that the appropriate remedy thereafter is the statutory appeal under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. It dismissed writ petitions filed by a commercial premises society and some of its members after finding that MCGM had complied with an earlier direction to issue unit-wise property tax bills.
Delhi HC
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, New Delhi v. Ernst And Young U.S. LLP
Case Number : ITA 423/2025 (and batch)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 627
The Delhi High Court on thursday held that payments made by Indian entities to a foreign company for the secondment of employees can be taxed as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) if the arrangement satisfies the "make available" test by transferring technical knowledge, skill, or experience to the Indian entity. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar allowed appeals filed by the Revenue against Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, holding that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in concluding that the secondment arrangement did not satisfy the "make available" requirement under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US DTAA.
Case Title : Sunil Bhalla v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 13 (1) New Delhi And Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15337/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 636
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that while computing the limitation period for reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, the time granted to an assessee to respond to a notice issued under Section 148A(b) must be excluded in terms of the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149. Applying this principle, the Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar dismissed a writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings as time-barred, holding that the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 were issued well within the prescribed limitation period.
Case Title : Shailendra Nath Rai v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 60 (1) New Delhi And Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15305/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 637
The Delhi High Court has held that a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act does not become invalid merely because the minimum seven-day period granted to an assessee for filing a reply extends beyond the limitation period prescribed for issuance of reassessment notices. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed that Parliament consciously provided for exclusion of the time granted to an assessee for filing a reply while computing limitation under Section 149, and that any contrary interpretation would defeat the legislative scheme.
Gujarat HC
Gujarat HC Quashes Reassessment, Holds No Escaped Income Exists Where MAT Liability Is Unchanged
Case Title : Pandesara Infrastructure Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Surat
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 11005 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 68
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against Pandesara Infrastructure Limited for Assessment Year 2020-21. The court found that the proposed recomputation of depreciation would not result in any income chargeable to tax escaping assessment. It also noted that the company's liability under the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime would remain unchanged. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the writ petition challenging a notice issued on 28 June 2025. The petition also questioned the consequential order passed on the same date.
High-Value Bank Transactions Alone Cannot Justify Reassessment: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : O3 Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application Nos. 14057 and 14096 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)70
The Gujarat High Court recently held that high-value transactions reflected in bank accounts, without any material showing that income had escaped assessment, cannot by themselves justify reopening an assessment. The court consequently quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against O3 Developers Pvt. Ltd. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati set aside reassessment notices and consequential orders issued against the company for AY 2019-20 and AY 2021-22. “Merely, because there are high value transactions in the bank accounts of the petitioner, the same would not ipso facto mean that there is escapement of income chargeable to tax without there being any iota of evidence.”
Case Title : Vasundhara Builders and Developers v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application Nos. 16029 and 16087 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)71
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that reassessment proceedings based on survey material are not excluded from the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The court observed that the revenue cannot import a restriction that does not appear in the statute. The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, was introduced by the Centre to reduce pending income-tax litigation by allowing eligible taxpayers to settle disputes and bring appeals to an end.
Gujarat High Court Quashes Reassessment After Escaped Income Falls Below ₹50 Lakh
Case Title : Touch Comm Tech Private Limited v. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 16693 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)72
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings against Touch Comm Tech Private Limited after finding that the alleged escaped income fell below ₹50 lakh, making the reopening time-barred. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the company's writ petition and set aside the order passed under Section 148A(d) along with the consequential reassessment notice. “Thus, it appears that in order to bring the assessment within the ambit of limitation, the entire amount of 70,00,000/- has been determined by the Assessing officer,” the court observed.
Case Title : Ammann India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 7854 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)80
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against road construction equipment maker Ammann India Private Limited. It held that the Revenue reopened the assessment by treating the company's scientifically determined warranty provision as an unascertained liability without considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS), or the material already available with the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : ABC v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 12632 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)81
The Gujarat High Court has recently refused to interfere with the Central Board of Direct Taxes' (CBDT) decision fixing the reward payable to an informant under the 2007 Reward Guidelines. It held that the reward is an ex gratia payment and that the court cannot re-evaluate the methodology adopted by the Full Board unless its determination suffers from manifest illegality or patent arbitrariness. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by a real estate consultant. He had sought enhancement of the reward granted for information relating to tax evasion by the Sheladia Group.
Kerala HC
Kerala HC Directs CIT To Reconsider Registration Of Trust From 2021, Examines CBDT Circular 7/2024
Case Title : Atma Bodhodaya Sangham Sree Subhananda Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)
Case Number : ITA No. 120 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 93
On 4 June, the Kerala High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to reconsider a Atma Bodhodaya Sangham Sree Subhananda Trust's claim for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act with effect from 1 April 2021, after examining the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 on rectification of defective exemption applications. A Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji set aside the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), which had denied retrospective registration to the Trust, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to complete the exercise within three months.
Case Title : Noel Villas and Apartments v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 4122 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 112
The Kerala High Court has held that tax authorities conducting faceless assessments are not required to issue a draft assessment order before finalising proceedings in the case of ordinary assessees. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., while dismissing writ petitions filed by a partnership firm engaged in the real estate business, observed that the requirement applies only to "eligible assessees" specifically defined under the Income Tax Act. "The requirement of issuing a draft assessment order before finalizing the proceedings is necessitated only in the case of an 'eligible assessee' as defined under Section 144(C)(15)(b) of the Act," the court held.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Retrospective Amendments To Income Tax Act, 1961
Case Title : The Revenue Bar Association vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WP 21494/2026
The Madras High Court on Monday issued notice on a plea challenging several retrospective amendments to the Income-tax Act, 1961 introduced through the Finance Act, 2026, which are alleged to be unconstitutional and to impermissibly overturn judicial interpretations of tax provisions. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice Arul Murugan issued notice on the petition and is likely to hear the matter next on July 21. The plea was filed by the Revenue Bar Association, a Chennai-based body of tax law practitioners.
Cash Loan Given In Breach Of Income Tax Act Can Still Be Recovered: Madras High Court
Case Title : P. Palanikumar v. R. Selvi
Case Number : A.S. (MD) No. 162 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 148
The Madras High Court at Madurai has held that a cash loan advanced in breach of the Income Tax Act does not become illegal merely for that reason, and the lender can still seek recovery of the money. A bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima was dealing with a case in which P. Palanikumar claimed to have lent ₹25 lakh in cash instead of through an instrument as contemplated under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. The bench held that while the Income Tax Department was free to take action for any violation of the Act, such a breach would not render the transaction illegal or prevent the lender from seeking recovery of the amount.
Rajasthan HC
60% Tax Rate Under Section 115BBE Cannot Apply To Pre-1 April 2017 Income: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Deepak Maratha v. Union of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3625/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 26
The Rajasthan High Court on 27 May held that the enhanced tax rate of 60% introduced under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act through the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, cannot be applied retrospectively to income pertaining to Financial Year 2016–17, as the amendment was expressly made effective from 1 April 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Sunil Beniwal held that the higher rate could operate only prospectively and could not govern income earned prior to its commencement.
ITAT
FTS Receipts Of Thai Company Not Taxable Under India-Thailand DTAA's Residuary Clause: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Denso International Asia Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (International Taxation)
Case Number : ITA No. 3421/Del/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 153
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) received by Thailand-based Denso International Asia Co. Ltd. from its Indian group companies cannot be taxed in India under the residuary clause of the India-Thailand Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). A bench comprising Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Renu Jauhri allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2021-22 and deleted an addition of ₹17.28 crore made by the Assessing Officer.
Per Diem Received By EY Employee During UK Assignment Taxable Only In UK, Not India: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Sachin Saxena v. DCIT/ACIT (International Taxation), Noida
Case Number : ITA No. 4037/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 154
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a ₹17.25 lakh addition made in the hands of an employee deputed to the United Kingdom, holding that ₹16.17 lakh received as per-diem during the overseas assignment was taxable, if at all, in the UK and not in India. Per diem is a daily allowance received by the employee during the his UK assignment. A bench of Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Brajesh Kumar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Sachin Saxena for the assessment year 2017-18.
Case Title : PNB Housing Finance Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 6763/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 155
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief to PNB Housing Finance Ltd. by allowing its claim for deduction in respect of eligible CSR-related donations and deleting a ₹3.36 crore penalty imposed for accepting cash EMI repayments from borrowers. Geographic Reference A bench of Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra passed the order while deciding a batch of appeals filed by the housing finance company for assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21.
Case Title : Milacron India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 1696/Ahd/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 156
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 May held that tax authorities cannot deny a deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act merely because a company made the donation to fulfil its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) obligations. Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar partly allowed an appeal filed by Milacron India Private Limited for Assessment Year 2020-21 and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Case Title : Roquette India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : I.T.A. Nos. 102 & 366/Ahd/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 157
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 May held that tax authorities cannot determine the arm's length price (ALP) of intra-group services at nil merely on a subjective perception of benefit once the taxpayer proves receipt of services and substantiates them with evidence. Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar allowed an appeal by Roquette India Pvt. Ltd. and deleted transfer pricing adjustments for Assessment Years 2017–18 and 2018–19 arising from payments made towards Central Corporate and Area services, Global Business Unit services, and IT services received from associated enterprises.
ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes ₹3.88 Crore Transfer Pricing Adjustment, Upholds TNMM Consistency
Case Title : Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 1609/Ahd/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 158
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 May held that in the absence of any change in facts or functional profile, tax authorities must consistently follow transfer pricing positions accepted in earlier years, and deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3.88 crore in the case of Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. Geographic Reference Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar rejected the Revenue's attempt to replace the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with an internal Cost Plus Method (CPM).
ITAT Delhi Holds TDS Applicable On CAM Charges As They Are Maintenance Payments, Not Rent
Case Title : DCIT v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 7689, 7684 & 7687/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 159
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 May held that Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges paid by tenants in shopping malls constitute payments for maintenance services and not rent, and therefore attract Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act and not under Section 194-I. Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member Renu Jauhri dismissed Revenue's appeals against Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Years 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16, upholding the deletion of the tax demand.
Transfer Pricing Must Be Benchmarked Using AE Transactions, Not Entity-Level Profits: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Cornell Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 850/Del/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 161
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 2 June 2026 held that transfer pricing analysis must ordinarily be restricted to international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) where reliable segmental data is available, and cannot be extended to entity-level profitability. Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra partly allowed the appeal filed by Cornell Overseas Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2007–08 and remanded the transfer pricing issue to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for fresh consideration of comparables.
Registered Sale Deed Triggers Capital Gains Tax Even If Payment Is Delayed: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Mehboob Jabir Patel v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Godhra
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 523/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 160
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 June held that execution and registration of a sale deed complete “transfer” for capital gains taxation purposes, and that delayed payment or dishonour of cheques does not postpone taxability unless the transaction itself is cancelled. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar passed the order in an appeal filed by Mehboob Jabir Patel. The Bench, however, directed the Assessing Officer to grant consequential relief if the same capital gains had already been taxed in Assessment Year 2016-17, to avoid double taxation.
Case Title : Jet Lite (India) Ltd. v. ACIT/DCIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 4885 & 4886/Del/2011 and ITA Nos. 3330 & 3331/Del/2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 162
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of penalties exceeding ₹7.6 crore imposed on Jet Lite (India) Ltd. in a fringe benefit tax (FBT) dispute. The tribunal held that the assessee had sought to justify its case against the fringe benefit assessment and that this could not be treated as furnishing inaccurate particulars. A bench of Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeals against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting penalties for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Tribunal also dismissed Jet Lite's appeals against the fringe benefit tax assessments for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Case Title : IMAX Corporation v. ACIT (International Taxation)
Case Number : ITA No. 1934/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 164
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that IMAX Corporation, Canada, did not have either a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) or an installation/supervisory PE in India. The tribunal held that a five-day site inspection visit and subsequent installation activities lasting only 17 days did not satisfy the conditions prescribed under the India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Since no PE existed in India, the Tribunal held that no income could be attributed to the alleged PE.
Case Title : FireEye Ireland Limited v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 825/Del/2023 and 3701/Del/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 165
On 5 June, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that consideration received from the sale of standard cybersecurity software licences, subscriptions, and related support services does not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS), as FireEye Ireland Limited did not render any customised technical or consultancy services. Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Renu Jauhari partly allowed the appeals filed by FireEye Ireland Limited for Assessment Years 2020–21 and 2021–22.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Antriksh Group Assessments Over Mechanical Search Assessment Approval
Case Title : Antriksh Engineers Construction Corporation & Ors. v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 8842 to 8846, 8851 to 8855, 8847 to 8850, 8856 to 8862 and 8911 & 8912/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 166
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently reiterated that approval required before search assessments are finalised must reflect independent application of mind and cannot be accorded mechanically through a common approval covering multiple assessees and assessment years. Holding that the approval granted in the present case suffered from non-application of mind, the Tribunal quashed assessments framed against various entities and individuals belonging to the Antriksh group.
Section 68 Addition Unsustainable Where Identity and Creditworthiness Are Proven: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : DCIT v. ANR International Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 5317/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 167
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 5 June held that an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained merely because share subscribers disclosed relatively low income in their income tax returns, where the taxpayer establishes their identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions. Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member Renu Jauhari dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision deleting a Rs. 3 crore addition made against ANR International Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Case Title : Ramatas Revathi v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No 4128/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 168
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a taxpayer cannot be denied the benefit of indexation on the cost of construction where details relating to the building are already available in the registered sale deed and form part of the material on record. A coram of Judicial Member Manu Kumar Giri and Accountant Member Gagan Goyal allowed an appeal filed by Ramatas Revathi.
Case Title : DCIT v. Excel Insurance Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1355 & 1356/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 169
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that, in the case of a person who was not subjected to a search, the relevant assessment block must be computed with reference to the date on which the jurisdictional Assessing Officer records satisfaction after receiving the seized material and not with reference to the date of the search conducted on a third party. A bench of Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra dismissed two appeals filed by the Revenue and affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had quashed assessments against Excel Insurance Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Case Title : Straumann Dental India LLP v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA No. 8894/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 170
On 10 June, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising from an unsigned and unregistered business transfer agreement. Judicial Member Madhumita Roy and Accountant Member Amitabh Shukla dismissed the appeal filed by Straumann Dental India LLP for Assessment Year 2017-18 and upheld the disallowance of depreciation of Rs 16.16 crore claimed on goodwill.
Case Title : Arvind Mevalal Panchal v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No. 2203/AHD/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 171
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Ahmedabad has held that a taxpayer who was aware of ongoing appellate proceedings cannot avoid the consequences of earlier non-compliance merely because the final notice was sent to a different email address. A division bench of Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Arvind Mevalal Panchal for statistical purposes against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19.
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle v. Gulbrandsen Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2281 & 2282/AHD/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 172
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that non-production of bills and vouchers could not be a valid reason to deny additional depreciation where the tax department had accepted the asset as plant and machinery and allowed normal depreciation on it. A division bench of Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha upheld the relief granted to Gulbrandsen Private Limited while deciding the Revenue's appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14.
Case Title : EBIXCASH World Money Limited v. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1)
Case Number : ITA No. 8607/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 173
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹76.45 crore made on interest paid by EBIXCASH World Money Limited on compulsorily convertible debentures (CCDs). The tribunal held that precedents consistently recognise CCDs as debt instruments and that interest paid on them cannot be disallowed by treating them as equity. “We find that the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is in fact covered by a series of decisions of Tribunal and High Courts wherein it is consistently held that CCDs cannot be treated as equity and interest in respect of CCD cannot be disallowed by TPO,” the tribunal observed.
SBI Not In Default For Not Deducting Tax On Leave Travel Claims Under HC Directions: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : State Bank of India v. Income Tax Officer & Anr.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1338, 1339, 1392 and 1498/AHD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 174
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on Friday held that the State Bank of India could not be treated as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on Leave Fare Concession payments made to employees. The tribunal found that the bank had acted in accordance with binding interim directions of the Madras High Court. A bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary allowed four appeals filed by different SBI branches.
Following Earlier Rulings, ITAT Mumbai Allows DSIR-Unapproved R&D Expenditure As Business Deduction
Case Title : Manugraph India Limited v. ACIT Circle – 3(2)(1), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No. 7160/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 175
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed Manugraph India Limited to claim ₹22 lakh in research and development (R&D) expenditure as a business deduction. The amount had not been approved by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for weighted deduction. The tribunal followed earlier decisions that permitted such claims under the Income Tax Act.
Case Title : Rakesh Kumar v. ITO, Ward 58 (6)
Case Number : ITANo.5882/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 176
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a ₹5.60 crore addition made against a Delhi jeweller over cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The bench found that the source of the deposits was recorded in the taxpayer's audited books of account and that the related business income had already been assessed. The bench comprising Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman allowed the appeal filed by Rakesh Kumar, proprietor of R.V. Gold Hallmark.
Case Title : Mumbai Port Authority v. ACIT (Exemption), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No. 2598/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 177
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Mumbai Port Authority's ₹80 crore contribution to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. under a leave encashment scheme is deductible, finding that the payment represented an actual outflow of funds rather than a mere provision for a future liability. A Bench of Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar observed: “The amount of Rs.80,00,00,000/- stands actually paid to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Receipt of which is place at page No. 60 of paper book) under a leave encashment scheme formulated for meeting employee benefit obligations. The payment has resulted in actual outflow of funds and the assessee has ceased to have control or dominion over the amount so contributed.”
Case Title : Nanne Gulzar & Company v. ACIT, Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3956/MUM/2025 & 3957/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 178
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held on 15 June that the Revenue must assess additions arising from search material only under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act and cannot invoke the reassessment provisions under Sections 147/148. Geographic Reference Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar allowed the appeals filed by Nanne Gulzar & Company and set aside the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Department. The Bench held: “As per the scheme and object of section 153C r.w.s 153A, the AO has no discretion or choice to invoke the provisions of section 147/148 instead of section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act.”
Revenue Must Disclose Tally Data, Forensic Report Before Making Additions: ITAT Kolkata
Case Title : Kailash Kumar Patwari v. DCIT, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA Nos. 912 to 921/Kol/2025 and Connected Matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 179
On 16 June, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Revenue cannot rely on tally data and a forensic analysis report without confronting a taxpayer with those materials, as doing so constitutes a “grave violation of natural justice”. Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar and Judicial Member Pradip Kumar Choubey partly allowed Kailash Kumar Patwari's appeals for statistical purposes, dismissed the Revenue's appeals, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.
Cash Held By Chartered Accountant For Client Tax Payments Not Unexplained Income: ITAT Chennai
Case Title : Bose Saravanan v. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Tiruchirappalli
Case Number : ITA No. 2217/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 180
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 11 June held that a practising Chartered Accountant does not incur liability under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act merely because clients deposit cash into his bank account for payment of statutory dues, where the evidence shows he used the funds to remit taxes on their behalf. Judicial Member Aby T. Varkey and Accountant Member Padmavathy S allowed the appeal filed by Bose Saravanan and directed the Assessing Officer to delete additions exceeding Rs. 29.87 crore. The Bench held: "We see merit in the submission that the assessee has acted as a conduit for payment of taxes on behalf of the clients and that the deposits reflecting in the bank account of the assessee does not belong to the assessee."
Reassessment Without Section 143(2) Notice Lacks Jurisdiction, Cannot Be Sustained: ITAT Kolkata
Case Title : Star Tradecom Private Limited v. I.T.O Ward-9(1) Kolkata
Case Number : ITA No.52/KOL/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 181
On 16 June, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that reassessment proceedings initiated without issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act are void ab initio, as the requirement goes to the root of jurisdiction and cannot be treated as a curable procedural lapse. Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar and Judicial Member Pradip Kumar Choubey set aside the reassessment against Star Tradecom Private Limited and quashed the consequential revisionary proceedings initiated by the Commissioner under Section 263. The Bench held: “The issue of invalidity can be raised in the collateral proceedings by the assessee even though the order concerned passed by the authorities have not been challenged before the appellate authority”
Case Title : DDIT (IT) v. American Express Bank Ltd. & Standard Chartered Holdings Inc. (Successor of American Express Bank Ltd.)
Case Number : ITA No. 3487/Mum/2004
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 183
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that interest received by the Indian branch of American Express Bank from its Head Office and overseas branches is not taxable in India. The Tribunal found that the transactions were between different parts of the same entity and therefore attracted the principle that a person cannot make a profit from oneself. A bench of Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar was hearing cross-appeals relating to Assessment Year 1999-2000 involving American Express Bank, a non-resident banking company with a Permanent Establishment in India.
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chilles & Garlic Commission Co.
Case Number : I.T.A. No.6812/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 183
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of an addition made on alleged undisclosed sales in the case of Chilles & Garlic Commission Co. after finding that the Assessing Officer had wrongly treated consignment sales handled by the commission agent as the taxpayer's own turnover. A bench of Judicial Member Amit Shukla and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia observed that the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a misconceived understanding of the taxpayer's business. According to the Tribunal, consignment sales undertaken on behalf of consignors were incorrectly construed as the taxpayer's turnover.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Proceedings Against Indeed Fincap Over Common, Vague Satisfaction Note
Case Title : ACIT v. Indeed Fincap Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITANo.8096/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 185
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed assessment proceedings initiated against Indeed Fincap Pvt. Ltd. after finding that the tax department relied on a common satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without identifying assessment year-specific incriminating material. A coram of Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had set aside the assessment.
Case Title : Ashvinkumar Joitaram Patel v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No.1358/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 186
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Ahmedabad has held that findings recorded by an Assessing Officer in a remand report cannot be disregarded by the Commissioner (Appeals) without any material to the contrary. The court observed that where the Assessing Officer, after verification, accepted that a taxpayer's land had been used for agricultural purposes and that the conditions for claiming exemption were met, those findings could not be ignored without contrary evidence. A bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Ashvinkumar Joitaram Patel for the assessment year 2016-17.
ITAT Delhi Upholds ₹18 Lakh Tax Deduction Claim On Ernst & Young's CSR Donations
Case Title : DCIT v. Ernst & Young Services Private Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 1389/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 184
Ernst & Young Services Private Limited has succeeded before the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a dispute over a tax deduction claimed on donations made as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) spending. The tribunal dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal and upheld the deduction. A bench of Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal was considering the Department's challenge to relief granted to the company.
ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes ₹26.08 Lakh Addition Based Solely On Investigation Wing Information
Case Title : Income Tax Officer v. Amrat Mali
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 2003/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 187
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate tribunal has upheld the deletion of a ₹26.08 lakh addition made against a taxpayer. The tribunal held that an addition cannot be sustained solely on information received from the Investigation Wing without independent enquiry or corroborative evidence linking the taxpayer to the alleged transactions. A bench of Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra R. Kamble dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes ₹2.25 Crore Addition On Land Deal Registered In 2019, Notes 2009 Agreement
Case Title : Chhaya Divyesh Patel v. The Deputy Director of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No.290/AHD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 188
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has deleted a tax addition of about ₹2.25 crore made against a Vadodara taxpayer in a land transaction. The tribunal held that the assessing officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel were not justified in confirming the addition after documents showed that payments had been made before the property's registration. The bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble allowed the taxpayer's appeal.
OYO Share Premium From FOCC Investment Not Taxable Under S.56(2)(viib) Income Tax Act: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited v. DCIT, Circle 19(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 5718/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 189
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 4 June held that Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked to tax share premium received through a Foreign Owned and Controlled Company (FOCC) where the investment complies with India's foreign investment regulations, as such transactions cannot be treated as routing unaccounted money. Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Vimal Kumar allowed the appeal filed by OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited and deleted the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) for Assessment Year 2021-22, while deciding cross appeals arising from the assessment.
Dividend From Cooperative Societies Remains Deductible Despite Erroneous Claim: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : ACIT v. Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Bulandshahr
Case Number : ITA No. 7658/Del/2025 with C.O. No. 71/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 190
On 19 June, the New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that a bona fide claim made under an incorrect provision does not disentitle a taxpayer from claiming a deduction otherwise available in law, and that dividend income received from a co-operative society remains eligible for deduction even if it cites the wrong exemption provision. Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the cross-objection filed by Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Bulandshahr, holding that the Assessing Officer wrongly made the addition on the society.
Case Title : Gemological Institute International, Inc. v. DCIT (International Taxation)
Case Number : ITA No. 1290/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 191
On 19 June, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that a foreign company cannot be denied the benefit of a lower tax rate merely because no separate approval was obtained from the Central Government, where the transaction itself was permitted under the automatic route prescribed by the RBI. Judicial Member Beena Pillai and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia allowed the appeal filed by Gemological Institute International, Inc., noting that a taxpayer cannot be expected to obtain an approval which is not contemplated under the governing regulations.
ITAT Kolkata Remands Capital Gains Assessments Over Mandatory DVO Reference Under Section 50C(2)
Case Title : Tapan Das v. ITO, Ward-1(1), Siliguri
Case Number : ITA No. 2259/KOL/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 192
On 18 June, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded a capital gains assessment after holding that an Assessing Officer is duty bound to refer a property valuation dispute to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) when a taxpayer seeks such reference under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra was hearing an appeal filed by Tapan Das against an order upholding an addition of Rs. 63.52 lakh towards long-term capital gains arising from the sale of land.
ITAT Ahmedabad Holds Suspicion Cannot Replace Evidence, Strikes Down ₹38 Lakh & ₹10.5 Lakh Additions
Case Title : ACIT v. Shreenathji Extrusion
Case Number : IT(SS)A No.130/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 193
On 18 June, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that additions cannot be sustained merely on suspicion when a taxpayer furnishes complete documentary evidence. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble deleted additions of Rs. 38 lakh and Rs. 10.5 lakh made by the Income Tax Department against Shreenathji Extrusion. The Bench held: “There is no cash outflow of Rs. 10,50,000/- from the assessee to M/s. Balkrishana Metal, much less an unexplained investment within the meaning of Section 69 of the Act. The evidence that Rs.10,50,000/- inward receipt through RTGS which is in the custody of the Department itself proves that the assessee paid an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- to M/s. Balkrishna Metal”.
Revenue Cannot Sit In The Armchair Of Businessmen: ITAT Delhi Deletes ₹17.8 Lakh Addition
Case Title : Palco Tex Feb Limited v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No. 3141/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 194
Tax authorities cannot sit in the armchair of businessmen and decide how businesses should be run merely because operations have ceased, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held. The tribunal deleted an addition of nearly ₹18 lakh that the Income Tax Department had treated as unexplained cash credits after a company received funds from its directors, their relatives, and a company under the same management. Accountant Member Ramit Kochar, sitting as a single-member tribunal, partly allowed the appeal filed by Palco Tex Feb Limited.
TPO Cannot Ignore Documentary Proof Of Services And Fix ALP At Nil: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Schaeffler India Ltd.
Case Number : I.T.A. No.2215/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 195
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), on 6 June, held that once a taxpayer demonstrates actual receipt of management services through documentary evidence, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot disregard the transaction and fix the Arm's Length Price (ALP) at nil based merely on assumptions of commercial necessity. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Schaeffler India Ltd. and upheld deletion of transfer pricing adjustments aggregating to approximately Rs. 11.59 crore.
Case Title : Jitendra Motilal Chawla v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : I.T.A. No.116/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 196
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that in reassessment proceedings involving unexplained foreign remittances, additional evidence relating to a taxpayer's overseas residency status and foreign business activities must be examined where it goes to the root of the controversy. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal set aside the assessment in Mr. Jitendra Motilal Chawla's case and restored the matter to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for reconsideration.
Mere Client Code Modification Not Enough To Invoke S.68 On Entire Transaction Value: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dharmdeep Commodities Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : I.T.A. Nos.1966&1967/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 197
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Department cannot treat the entire value of commodity transactions routed through alleged client code modifications as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of material showing that the taxpayer benefited from accommodation entries. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal upheld relief granted to Dharmdeep Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and ruled that the authorities can tax only the profit element embedded in such transactions, not the entire transaction value.
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Biharibhai Gokalbhai Patel
Case Number : I.T.A. No.235/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 198
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Ahmedabad has upheld the deletion of additions made against a taxpayer after finding that documentary evidence showed the disputed property investments were made in an earlier financial year and not during the assessment year under consideration. A bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
ITAT Ahmedabad Holds Form 26AS Mismatch Alone Insufficient For Addition, Restores ₹42.34 Lakh Issue
Case Title : Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 1696/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 199
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 June held that a mismatch between revenue reflected in Form 26AS and a taxpayer's books of account does not, by itself, justify an addition, and that such discrepancies require a proper reconciliation exercise before any addition can be sustained. Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary allowed the appeal filed by Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd for statistical purposes and remanded the Rs. 42.34 lakh addition to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after reconciliation.
Case Title : LANXESS India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-1, Thane
Case Number : ITA No.6627/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 200
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹61.22 crore. The tribunal held that a pending appeal before the Bombay High Court does not dilute the binding nature of an earlier coordinate bench decision unless it has been stayed or reversed by a superior judicial forum. A bench of Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee and Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant and passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by LANXESS India Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Ahmedabad Condones 388-Day Delay In Appeal, Cites Poor Advice From Tax Consultant
Case Title : Shree Nathubhai Sa Vjibhai Desai College of Education v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1
Case Number : ITA Nos. 523 & 798/AHD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 201
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Ahmedabad has recently condoned a 388-day delay in filing an appeal by an educational institution. The tribunal found that the delay was caused by inadequate legal advice from its previous tax consultant and a bona fide belief that no further compliance was required. A bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary set aside orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed through the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).
ITAT Ahmedabad Upholds Relief To Adani Total Gas, Says No Exempt Income No Section 14A Disallowance
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Adani Total Gas Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 785/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 202
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 22 June reiterated that no disallowance can be made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act where the taxpayer has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the deletion of a Rs. 2.38 crore disallowance made against Adani Total Gas Ltd. for Assessment Year 2020-21.
ITAT Restores Appeal As Assessee Receives Order Intimation Belatedly, Accepts Envelope As Proof
Case Title : Sudipta Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA No. 465/KOL/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 203
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 22 June held that an appeal cannot be dismissed as time barred if filed within the statutory period computed from the date of service of the order. Judicial Member George Mathan and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra set aside an Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that had dismissed an appeal by Sudipta Traders Pvt. Ltd. without examining merits, and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
Loan To Non-Shareholder Company Not Taxable As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(e): ITAT Kolkata
Case Title : JHV Steels Ltd. v. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA No. 1274/KOL/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 204
On 22 June, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that a loan received by a company cannot be taxed as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act merely because it has a common shareholder with the lending company, where the borrowing company itself is not a shareholder. Judicial Member George Mathan and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra partly allowed JHV Steels Ltd.'s appeal against an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and set aside the Principal Commissioner's revision on the deemed dividend issue.
ITAT Kolkata Restores Appeal Over CPC Notice Sent To Former Consultant, Condones 1,542-Day Delay
Case Title : Angkur Moulik v. ITO, Ward-1(1), Siliguri
Case Number : ITA No. 3124/KOL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 205
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 22 June held that authorities must condone delay where sufficient cause exists, particularly when tax communications are addressed to a former authorised representative and the taxpayer establishes lack of actual knowledge. Judicial Member George Mathan and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra allowed the appeal filed by Angkur Moulik, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], and restored the matter for adjudication on merits after condoning a delay of 1,542 days.
Case Title : The Bank of Nova Scotia v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Connected Matters
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3159/Mum/2004, 7158/Mum/2004, 2285/Mum/2005 and connected appeals & cross-objections
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 206
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, has recently held that interest income earned by a foreign bank from foreign currency loans extended to Indian corporates is taxable on a gross basis. It ruled that such income cannot be reduced by attributing expenditure before the concessional rate of tax is applied. The bench of President Justice C.V. Bhadang and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav held that the provisions of Section 115A of the Income Tax Act require interest income earned by a foreign company from foreign currency loans to be taxed on a gross basis, without allowing any deduction for related expenditure.
ITAT Delhi Says Computation Of Mandatory Interest Must Be Examined Before Dismissing Appeal
Case Title : Diamond Piston and Rings Ltd. v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA No. 1421/Del/2026 (AY 2012-13)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 207
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that while the levy of interest under the Income Tax Act is statutory and mandatory, an appeal challenging its computation cannot be dismissed without examining the issue on merits. A coram of Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member Ramit Kochar ruled, “There is no dispute that the interest is statutory and mandatory, but working /computation could be subject to challenge, if the assessee is so aggrieved, which then need to be worked out as per mandate of the 1961 Act. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without checking the computation of working of interest u/s 234A and 234B.”
ITAT Delhi Deletes ₹1.23 Crore Addition To Borrower's Income Over Lender's Low-Declared Income
Case Title : Florence Nightingale Educational Society v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 5586/Del/2025 (AY 2017-18)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 208
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Delhi has recently reiterated that a lender's low declared income, by itself, is not sufficient to reject its creditworthiness for advancing an unsecured loan. Allowing the appeal of Florence Nightingale Educational Society, the tribunal observed that the relevant test is the lender's ability to arrange funds and not merely its earning capacity. Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman allowed the appeal filed by Florence Nightingale Educational Society.
ITAT Ahmedabad Quashes Reassessment Against Tipsons Stock Brokers, Deletes ₹1.33 Crore Disallowance
Case Title : Tipsons Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Case Number : ITA No. 1416/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 209
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently quashed reassessment proceedings against Tipsons Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. It held that the Income Tax Department reopened the assessment solely by re-examining material already on record. The tribunal also deleted a disallowance of about ₹1.33 crore made against the company. A bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary observed that the conditions for reopening an assessment beyond four years were not met. It found no failure by the company to fully and truly disclose material facts.
Brilliant Study Centre Faculty Are Independent Professionals, Not Employees For TDS: ITAT Cochin
Case Title : Brilliant Study Centre Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward TDS, Kottayam
Case Number : S.A. No. 37/Coch/2026 & ITA No. 545/Coch/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(COC) 211
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Cochin has recently held that faculty members engaged by Brilliant Study Centre Pvt. Ltd., a well-known Kerala coaching institute that prepares students for NEET, JEE, and other medical and engineering entrance examinations, were independent professionals and not employees. It consequently set aside a demand of Rs. 9.48 lakh raised against the institute after the Income Tax Department treated it as an assessee in default for allegedly short-deducting tax at source.
Case Title : Maan Steel & Power Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1167, 2354, 1096 & 2609/KOL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 210
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), on 26 June held that where reassessment is initiated on the basis of material seized during a third-party search conducted prior to 1 April 2021, the Income Tax Department must proceed under the special search assessment provisions and cannot invoke Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar allowed the appeals filed by Maan Steel & Power Ltd. for assessment years 2018–19 and 2019–20 and dismissed the Revenue's cross appeals as infructuous, while quashing the reassessment proceedings.
Case Title : Stargate Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai
Case Number : ITA No. 1396/CHNY/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 212
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 June held that a penalty under Section 271B for failure to furnish a tax audit report cannot be sustained where the taxpayer acted under a bona fide belief that the audit requirement did not apply. Vice President George George K and Accountant Member Gagan Goyal allowed the appeal filed by Stargate Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and deleted the penalty of Rs.1.5 lakh imposed under Section 271B for failure to furnish a tax audit report under Section 44AB.
Case Title : Emdarapu Kumaraswamy v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad
Case Number : ITA No. 1441/Hyd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(HYD) 213
The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 June held that winnings taxable under Section 115BB of the Income Tax Act must be computed on the basis of net winnings from online games and not on gross amounts reflected by gaming platforms. Vice President Vijay Pal Rao and Accountant Member Manjunatha G partly allowed the appeal filed by Emdarapu Kumaraswamy and set aside the addition made towards alleged online gaming winnings and remanded the issue relating to disallowance of deductions.
ITAT Hyderabad Quashes Penalty U/S 271DA Income Tax Act, Finds No Proof Of Section 269ST Violation
Case Title : Shreemukh Realtors v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1021 to 1024/Hyd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(HYD) 214
On 24 June, the Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside penalties imposed on Shreemukh Realtors under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, holding that the Revenue failed to prove, with cogent evidence, any contravention of Section 269ST relating to alleged cash receipts exceeding Rs. 2 lakh. Vice President Vijay Pal Rao and Accountant Member Manjunatha G allowed the appeals against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had upheld penalties for assessment years 2020–21 to 2023–24.
Other Developments
FIIs, BIS Get Income Tax Exemption On Government Securities Under New Income Tax Ordinance
Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) will be exempt from income tax on interest earned from government securities and capital gains arising from their sale, exchange, or transfer under amendments introduced by the Centre through the Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026. The ordinance, published in the Gazette on June 5, amends Schedule IV of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and is deemed to have come into force from April 1, 2026.