SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi HC Ruling On GoDaddy Domain Fees Under India-US DTAA
Case Title : ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GODADDY.COM
Case Number : 45711/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order holding that payments received by GoDaddy.com LLC from Indian customers towards domain-name registration services are not chargeable to income tax in India under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli after hearing the parties, refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order.
Case Title : THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 VERSUS SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.40944/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 288
The Supreme Court on 31 August dismissed the Income Tax Department's Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against the Delhi High Court's judgment in Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd's transfer pricing dispute, citing unexplained delays of 609 days and 457 days while keeping the questions of law open. A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the petitions on the ground of delay, finding no satisfactory explanation from the Revenue for the gross delays.
Assessing Officer Cannot Reopen Income Tax Settlement Through Reassessment: Supreme Court
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. M/s Omaxe Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 9190 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 310
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that once a taxpayer's case has been finally settled by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen matters covered by the settlement through the ordinary reassessment route under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court said the Revenue can seek to reopen a settlement on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation by moving the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(6). The Assessing Officer, however, cannot independently reopen the settled assessment.
Case Title : Union Of India v Bharat Industrial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : SLP(C) No. 033196/2026
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment declaring Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unconstitutional. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stayed the High Court judgment until the final disposal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union Government challenging the ruling. “The impugned order shall remain stayed on the condition that assessment as well as reassessment proceedings shall not proceed further till final disposal of the main matter. Notify this appeal for the final hearing on 3rd December.”, the court ordered.
CBDT Circulars Reflect Executive's Understanding Of Law, Not Binding On Courts: Supreme Court
Case Title : Orient Crafts Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 143-144 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 311
The Supreme Court on Friday held that CBDT circulars merely represent the Executive's understanding of a statutory provision and are not binding on the High Courts or the Supreme Court. The observation came while the court rejected an assessee's reliance on a CBDT Office Memorandum to claim a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act on premium received from the sale of export quotas A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that such circulars merely reflect the Executive's understanding of a statutory provision and cannot bind courts while interpreting the Income Tax Act.
Ernst & Young US LLP has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court ruling which held that payments received in connection with employees sent from the US to work with Indian entities were taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS). The dispute concerns whether the amounts received by the US entity were merely reimbursement of salaries and other employment costs or consideration for technical services taxable in India under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes ₹6.23 Lakh Tax Demand Over Expired DTVSV Payment Deadline
Case Title : N. Venu Gopal Reddy v. Union Of India and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 32115 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 51
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 24 August held that the Income Tax Department cannot require a Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (DTVSV) declarant to meet a payment deadline that had expired before the Department issued the revised payment certificate. A Division Bench comprising Justices Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar set aside a Rs. 6,23,708 demand raised against N. Venu Gopal Reddy, a works contractor, and directed the Income Tax authorities to issue the final order under the scheme.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Flyjac Logistics Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing-2(1)(1), Mumbai and Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2279 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 499
The Bombay High Court has ruled that notices issued by a Transfer Pricing Officer seeking information from a taxpayer cannot substitute the show cause notice required before determining the arm's length price. A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash observed, “Further the notice issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(2) of the Act seeking information from an Assessee cannot be said to be a Show Cause Notice issued as per the proviso to Section 92C(3) of the Act.”
Bombay High Court Says Income Tax Assessment Cannot Stand On Quashed Revision Order
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Mumbai v. The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal (L.) No. 20200 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 507
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an assessment order cannot survive when the revision order on which it was based has already been quashed by the income tax tribunal. Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded with the assessment after the tribunal had quashed the underlying Section 263 order. The court also rejected the Revenue's contention that the pending challenge against the tribunal's decision changed this position.
Case Title : Prayas Goel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2489 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 512
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an income tax assessment cannot be reopened where the record shows that an issue was examined during scrutiny and the assessee's claim was accepted, even if the original assessment order did not expressly discuss the issue. The bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash observed that “it is not necessary for an Assessing Officer to discuss each and every issue elaborately to disclose his satisfaction” when accepting an assessee's claim.
Bombay High Court Directs Department Not To Reassess Taxpayers Challenging Income Tax Act Sec. 147A
Case Title : Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4310 of 2024 [OS]
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 515
The Bombay High Court on 2 September directed the Income Tax Department not to proceed with reassessment proceedings against taxpayers who have challenged and pressed the constitutional validity of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including in petitions not presently listed with the main batch of cases. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Farhan P. Dubash passed the interim order in a batch of petitions led by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The judges extended the interim protection already granted in several petitions to other pending matters challenging Section 147A.
Bombay High Court Quashes Fresh Scrutiny Of Thomson Reuters Over Modified Return Filed After Merger
Case Title : Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 15691 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 519
The Bombay High Court on 8 September quashed the fresh scrutiny and transfer pricing proceedings initiated against Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited for Assessment Year 2022-23. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Farhan P. Dubash held that filing a modified return after a business reorganisation does not require a fresh assessment when proceedings for the same year are already pending. Under Section 170A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, the modified return must be considered as part of the pending assessment.
Case Title : GIA India Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2604 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 524
The Bombay High Court has held that imposing an income tax penalty on account of a reduction in an expenditure claim pursuant to a position settled under an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) is contrary to the scheme of the Income-tax Act and cannot be sustained. A division bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash observed that the APA framework, introduced to reduce tax litigation, would be rendered ineffective if consequential penalties could be imposed after an expenditure claim was reduced pursuant to a position settled under an APA.
Case Title : The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax–17, Mumbai v. Mile Stone Real Estate Fund
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 1209 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 525
The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) registered with SEBI does not need separate registration for each scheme it operates to claim exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act. A Division Bench comprising Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Milestone Real Estate Fund. The court upheld the Fund's eligibility for the exemption.
Bombay High Court Condones Trust's 30-Day Delay In Filing Tax Audit Form Despite Pending CBDT Plea
Case Title : Vallabh Welfare Foundation v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 24472 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 533
The Bombay High Court on 21 September condoned Vallabh Welfare Foundation's 30-day delay in filing Form 10B for Assessment Year 2020-21, despite the charitable trust having already approached the CBDT seeking condonation of the delay. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Farhan P. Dubash declined to relegate the Foundation to its pending application before the CBDT, finding that the peculiar facts warranted the High Court's intervention.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. Mahalaxmi Infra Projects Ltd.
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 2691 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 534
The Bombay High Court has cautioned the Income Tax Department against routinely challenging Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) orders by mechanically framing substantial questions of law. A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed, "we are constrained to observe here that this Bench has noticed that Appeals under Section 260A of the Act are filed by the Department in a routine manner whereby the suggested substantial questions of law(s) are drafted mechanically. In most of those appeals, legal objection and/or purported grounds of challenge to the orders of the Tribunal have been projected as substantial questions of law, based on which, a large number of Income Tax Appeals have been filed under Section 260A of the Act which are pending before this Court. Having regard to the legislative scheme of Section 260A, the remedy thereunder, cannot be permitted to become a routine or automatic continuation of the proceeding instituted before the learned Tribunal"
Case Title : RG Studios v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 869 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 535
The Bombay High Court on 22 September held that a taxpayer cannot be denied the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme merely because the department quantified its service tax liability in a communication addressed to the taxpayer's bank rather than directly to the taxpayer. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed RG Studios' petition challenging the rejection of its declaration under the Scheme, under which the firm had declared service tax dues of Rs. 44.28 lakh.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Quashes Income-Tax Reassessment Against McNally Bharat After IBC Resolution Plan
Case Title : McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : WPO 546 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 224
The Calcutta High Court has quashed income-tax reassessment proceedings against McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, holding that the authorities failed to satisfy the statutory conditions for reopening the assessment and acted contrary to the company's NCLT-approved resolution plan. Justice Smita Das De allowed the company's writ petition and set aside the notice and order issued by the tax authorities along with all consequential proceedings. The authorities were also restrained from taking action contrary to the resolution plan.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata v. M/s Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 51 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 229
The Calcutta High Court has refused to condone a 1,480-day delay in filing an income tax appeal, holding that the Income Tax Department cannot explain such an inordinate delay merely by pointing to its heavy workload and the number of matters it was handling. A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Sudip Deb found that the Department had not shown due diligence in pursuing the appeal. The explanation offered for the delay was not sufficient to justify condoning it.
ATMs Are 'Computers' Under Income Tax Rules, Calcutta High Court Allows Higher Depreciation
Case Title : The Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V. v. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA 699 of 2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 230
The Calcutta High Court has held that Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) qualify as “computers” for claiming the higher depreciation rate under the Income Tax Rules, rejecting the Revenue's classification of the machines as general office equipment or machinery. “The revenue's attempt to categorise these units as general office equipment or machinery ignores the technical reality that they are specialised computing devices. Given that the technical specifications of an ATM align with the broad category of computers described in Appendix I, the appellant's claim for the higher depreciation rate is sustainable. This court finds that the functional parity between an ATM and a computer is sufficient to warrant its inclusion under the relevant rule for depreciation. We answer the substantial question (4) in the negative, i.e., against the revenue and in favor of the assessee,” the court ruled.
Different Evidence View By AO, CIT(A) No Ground To Interfere With ITAT Findings: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Kolkata v. Utkarsh Rai
Case Number : ITAT 174 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 231
On 22 September, the Calcutta High Court held that a different view of the evidence taken by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot, by itself, justify interference with factual findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Sudip Deb dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an ITAT Kolkata order granting relief to bullion trader Utkarsh Rai for Assessment Year 2020-21.
Income-Tax Objection Filed Next Working Day After Sunday Deadline Valid: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : GFK Mode Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 17247 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 236
The Calcutta High Court on 24 September held that a taxpayer's objection against a draft income-tax assessment cannot be rejected as time-barred when the 30-day deadline falls on a Sunday and the objection is filed on the next working day. Justice Smita Das De was dealing with a plea by GFK Mode Private Limited, whose objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was rejected as time-barred. The last date was 15 March 2026, which was a Sunday, and the company filed its objection on 16 March.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 New Delhi v. NTPC Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 89/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 946
The Delhi High Court has rejected the Income Tax Department's appeal challenging the annulment of reassessment proceedings against NTPC Limited, holding that the subsequent Assessing Officer (AO) had initiated the proceedings merely because he disagreed with the view taken by his predecessor. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the reassessment was a "classic case of change of opinion", particularly since the issues forming the basis of reassessment had already been examined during the original scrutiny assessment.
Tax Paid Twice On Same Income Is 'Unjust Enrichment' By Government: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sojitz Asia Pte. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax), New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7495/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 950
The Delhi High Court has held that refusal to allow an assessee to correct an inadvertent double taxation of the same income would amount to “unjust enrichment” on the part of the Union of India. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta added that the Government can charge tax only once on a particular income. The Court made the observation while allowing a petition where Petitioner had inadvertently offered the same interest income of ₹7,58,90,455 to tax in two assessment years.
Case Title : J J Foods Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 13 (1) Delhi &Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7705/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 956
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) curtailed the assessee's statutory opportunity to respond and subsequently ignored the reply that had been filed before the order was passed. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the assessee was entitled to 30 days to file its reply, whereas the AO had practically reduced the time available to it to around 15 days.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside 7 ITAT Orders In Patanjali Ayurved Tax Appeals Over Procedural Lapses
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited
Case Number : ITA 80/2026&CM APPL. 6824/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 958
The Delhi High Court on 10 September set aside seven orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in tax appeals involving Patanjali Ayurved Limited, citing procedural lapses, non-application of mind and undue haste in passing a common order in seven appeals. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta set aside the orders after the Income Tax Department challenged four of them, noting that the seven appeals had been heard and pronounced on different dates but were disposed of through a common order.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Delhi v. Smt. Saloni Narang
Case Number : ITA 437/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 964
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against an ITAT order quashing a search assessment for AY 2006-07 on the ground of limitation, in light of its earlier judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi v. Sanjay Jain which held time limit for completing search assessments cannot be extended merely by making a reference to a foreign tax authority if the information sought is not permissible under the applicable tax treaty.
Mere Payment By Indian Resident To Non-Resident Not Income Accruing In India: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Teva Pharmaceuticals Usa Inc. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10711/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 968
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a payment is made by an Indian resident to a non-resident, the payment cannot by itself be treated as income accruing or arising in India. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar made the observation while allowing a batch of petitions concerning the taxability of payments made by Ranbaxy Laboratories to Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Israel and the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA.
Case Title : Elsevier BV v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12114/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 982
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot invoke reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely to make up for his own failure to record a finding on the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, after having conducted an inquiry into the issue during the original assessment. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Elsevier BV, a company incorporated and tax resident in the Netherlands, challenging reassessment proceedings initiated against it for Assessment Year 2016-17.
Case Title : Shri Krishna Industries Through It Proprietor Prop Mohan Lal v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4897/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 983
The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) can co-exist where they concern distinct liabilities or contraventions. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a plea filed challenging proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities under Section 74 of the CGST Act in relation to alleged inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by Petitioner.
Delhi High Court Stays Income Tax Reassessment Against GoDaddy Over 'Over-Zealous' Approach Of AO
Case Title : GoDaddy.com LLC v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3), International Taxation, New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13368/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 987
The Delhi High Court has stayed income reassessment proceedings initiated against domain registrar GoDaddy.com LLC, observing that the Assessing Officer (AO) was proceeding with an “over-zealous approach” and appeared to be guided by revenue considerations. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the AO had “ignored objectivity and basic tenet of tax adjudication system, being certainty and finality of the assessment proceedings.”
Case Title : Garima Vikas v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5278/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 988
The Delhi High Court has held that where a search was conducted between April 1, 2021 and September 1, 2024, the reassessment provisions under Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they stood before the Finance Act, 2024 amendment, would continue to apply. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta accordingly upheld the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act without first following the procedure under Section 148A(b), (c) and (d).
Delhi High Court Upholds Delhivery's ₹51.48 Crore Deduction For ESOP Expenditure
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Delhivery Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 479/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 989
The Delhi High Court has upheld Delhivery Pvt. Ltd.'s claim for deduction of ₹51.48 crore in ESOP expenditure, ruling that the Assessing Officer was also not justified in rejecting a Chartered Accountant's valuation report for an assessment year when such certification was permissible The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dismissed the Revenue's appeal in its entirety and answered both questions raised before it in favour of the assessee.
Case Title : A.T. Kearney Limited – India Branch Office v. Union of India & Anr. (and batch)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5178/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 990
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to file an affidavit disclosing the pendency of cases before the Boards for Advance Rulings and their benches, while also seeking details regarding the status of Chief Commissioners nominated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) as members of the Boards. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta passed the direction while hearing a batch of petitions, including those filed by Mitsubishi Electric and the Regents of the University of Michigan.
Case Title : Raj Sheela Growth Fund Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer Ward 21 (1) Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13737/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1001
The Delhi High Court has declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction in a challenge concerning the jurisdiction of an Income Tax Officer to pass an assessment order, noting that the assessee had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order and the appeal had been pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) since January 2020. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, however, requested CIT(A) to decide the pending appeal within two months.
Case Title : Shantijanak Estates Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi &Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12741/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1005
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot require an assessee to furnish “negative evidence” to establish that no appeal has been filed against an assessment order while considering an application for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while setting aside an order passed by the AO rejecting an application filed by Petitioner seeking immunity from penalty proceedings.
Case Title : Mastercard Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10944/2018
The Delhi High Court on Friday orally observed that treating a network or towers as a permanent establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise could be a “very dangerous proposition," warning that such an approach could be misused across jurisdictions. “AAR's view that towers and network itself constitute a PE is a very dangerous proposition ... it can be misused anywhere,” a Division Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary observed while hearing afresh Mastercard Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.'s challenge to a 2018 ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) at Delhi.
Case Title : Kapoor Industries Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 1 New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9137/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1029
The Delhi High Court has stayed ₹17.66 crore reassessment proceedings initiated against a company, noting that the same amount had already been accepted by the Assessing Officer as belonging to the company and had been offered to tax as cash sales. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary was hearing a petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2024-25.
'Really Troubling': Delhi High Court Orders Opening Of Taxpayer's Locker Seized For Over 30 Years
Case Title : Devi Dayal Aggarwal v. CIT Central II,New Delhi And Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1565/2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1045
The Delhi High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to open a taxpayer's locker, which has remained seized for more than 30 years, observing that continued seizure of the locker serves no purpose after the tax dispute had already been finalised by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary was hearing a petition filed by Devi Dayal Aggarwal, who approached the Court alleging that the Assessing Officer had failed to pass an order giving effect to an ITAT order passed in 2004.
Gauhati HC
Income Tax Prosecution Cannot Survive Once Assessment Is Set Aside On Merits: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : M/s Flamingo Breweries Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Others v. Income Tax Department
Case Number : Crl.Pet. No. 896/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 31
The Gauhati High Court on 2 September held that an income tax prosecution cannot continue when the assessment on which it is based has been set aside on merits, and that separate complaints against company directors for the same alleged offence are not maintainable when the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused. Justice Robin Phukan allowed three petitions filed by Flamingo Breweries Private Limited and its two directors and quashed the criminal complaints pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.
Gujarat HC
Gujarat High Court Grants ₹1 Crore Tax Refund To Charitable Trust After Exemption Was Omitted
Case Title : Sheth Shree Karshandas Halu Dharamshala Jamnagar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 15686 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 120
The Gujarat High Court on 25 August quashed the rejection of the revision application filed by Sheth Shree Karshandas Halu Dharamshala Jamnagar and held that the public charitable trust was entitled to exemption under Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that a bona fide omission to claim a statutory tax benefit in the original return can be corrected through revisional proceedings under Section 264 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Quashes DVO Reference Made A Day Before Assessment Became Time-Barred
Case Title : Slimtile Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 13575 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 123
The Gujarat High Court has quashed an Assessing Officer's reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) made just a day before the assessment was due to become time-barred. The court held that the reference was a colourable exercise aimed at extending the time available to complete the assessment. A bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati found that the material relating to the company's assets and payments was already available with the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) v. Income Tax Officer, TDS Circle, TDS, Vadodara & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 6494 of 2026 with allied petitions
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 125
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the tax department cannot rely on the three-month time limit for passing a consequential order under the Income-tax Act to justify delaying refunds under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. It held that the department was required to pass the necessary order and issue the refund by July 31, 2021, as prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), and directed it to pay interest at 6% per annum on the delayed refund from August 1, 2021 to March 2, 2024.
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. M/s J K Paper Limited
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 290 of 2010 with R/Tax Appeal No. 900 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 132
The Gujarat High Court has upheld an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal finding that expenditure incurred by J K Paper Limited on supervising trees grown by farmers could not be treated as agricultural expenditure. The tribunal had also excluded expenditure on producing coppice shoots through a process that did not involve primary operations on land. A bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi upheld the tribunal's decision to restrict the disallowance of agricultural loss to ₹9.43 lakh, against the ₹78.12 lakh addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Ahmedabad v. Expert Particle Board
Case Number : Tax Appeal Nos.436 & 437 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 133
The Gujarat High Court on 8 September held that diary entries or other material found during survey proceedings cannot, by themselves, justify additions in the hands of a partnership firm when the material was not recovered from the firm's premises and there is no independent evidence linking the transactions recorded in it to the firm. A Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Revenue's appeals against Expert Particle Board and its partner, upholding the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT Rajkot. It also upheld the deletion of a Rs. 54.04 lakh purchase disallowance, finding that the alleged purchases had never been claimed as a deduction in the books or the return.
Gujarat High Court Holds Company Entitled To Interest On ₹2.50 Crore TDS Refund
Case Title : Maharashtra Border Check Post Network Ltd. v. C.B.D.T. & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 21110 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 134
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that Maharashtra Border Check Post Network Ltd. is entitled to interest on a ₹2.50 crore refund arising from a TDS demand that was later set aside. The court held that the company's claim was covered by Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act and could not be denied by relying on Section 244A(1B), which came into effect from April 1, 2017. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed that Section 244A(1)(b) already provided for interest on refunds in cases falling outside the specific categories covered by Section 244A(1)(a).
Case Title : Lodestone Software Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 5025 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 135
The Gujarat High Court on 17 September held that an assessment cannot be reopened merely on the basis of an audit objection when the underlying issue was examined during the original scrutiny and no fresh or tangible material indicates escapement of income. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati quashed the Section 148A(3) order and consequential Section 148 notice issued to Lodestone Software Services Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2022-23, finding that the reopening was based on a misreading of the audit report.
Case Title : Dilavarsinh Harisinh Zala v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ahmedabad & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 8681 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 138
The Gujarat High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the question of whether seized assets must be mandatorily released upon completion of 120 days under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, where an application for release is filed within 30 days. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati referred three questions concerning the interpretation of the First and Second Provisos to Section 132B(1)(i).
Case Title : Rajgrin Infralink LLP v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 20021 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 140
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the rejection of a taxpayer's application seeking condonation of delay in filing an income tax return can be examined even after an assessment order has been passed and an appeal against it is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). “We do not subscribe to the objection raised by the Revenue since it is an admitted position that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) does not have the power in condoning the delay and the remedy invoked by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act reconciles with the statutory scheme of the Act,” a Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed.
Karnataka HC
TPO Cannot Reject Comparables Merely To Adopt Department's Preferred Set: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : SAP Labs India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer & Connected Matters
Case Number : ITA No.10 of 2011 & Connected Appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 156
The Karnataka High Court on 28 August held that a Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot reject comparable companies selected by a taxpayer merely to replace them with a standard set of comparables preferred by the Income Tax Department, holding that the selection or exclusion of comparables must satisfy the requirements under the Income Tax Act and Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind allowed the batch of transfer pricing appeals, including one by SAP Labs India Private Limited, and noted that the TPO must justify the selection or exclusion of comparable companies based on the statutory requirements.
Case Title : Anurag Kalia v. Union of India
Case Number : WP 28761 of 2025
The Centre on Saturday told the Karnataka High Court that interpreting “spouse” to include same-sex partners under a provision of the Income Tax Act would indirectly recognise a same-sex matrimonial relationship, which is not recognised under Indian law. “Same-sex marriage is not a recognised marriage in the Indian context. So, if we understand spouse to mean same sex people, we indirectly recognise their matrimonial relationship. Therefore, spouse necessarily means husband and wife,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Revision Proceedings Over ESOP Tax Treatment After ₹27.13 Cr. Refund
Case Title : Shri Mukesh Bansal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2026 (T-IT)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 167
On 18 September, the Karnataka High Court set aside revision proceedings initiated against taxpayer Mukesh Bansal after his revised income tax return for the assessment year 2019-20 resulted in a refund of Rs. 27.13 crore. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav held that an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, without any adjustment, cannot be treated as an “order” for exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Act.
Case Title : Mukesh Bansal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2026 (T-IT)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 167
The Karnataka High Court has set aside income tax revision proceedings initiated against entrepreneur and Myntra and Cult. fit co-founder Mukesh Bansal in connection with a refund of over ₹27.13 crore for AY 2019-20. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav held that an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, without any adjustment, could not be treated as an order for exercising revisionary powers under Section 263.
Case Title : Mrs. Hind Sennoun v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 16540 OF 2021 (T-IT)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 174
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an assessment order against a Moroccan woman under the Black Money Act after holding that the Income Tax Department had assessed her foreign assets in the wrong assessment year. The Court held that since she had acquired the assets before the Black Money Act came into force and had not made a declaration under Section 59, Section 72(c) deemed the assets to have been acquired in the year in which the first notice under Section 10 was issued.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Sets Aside Income Tax Assessment Treating PG Student's Stipend As Salary
Case Title : Nahas Kakkattummal v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : WA NO. 1543 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 177
The Kerala High Court on 17 August set aside an income tax assessment order treating the stipend received by a postgraduate medical student as salary, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider his claim that stipend paid to a student is exempt from income tax. A Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji allowed the appeal filed by Nahas Kakkattummal and set aside both the Single Judge's judgment and the assessment order, directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter after giving the student an opportunity to produce relevant documents.
Kerala High Court Quashes Order Dismissing Actor Jayasurya's Income Tax Appeal Over Non-Appearance
Case Title : Jayan Vatahakkattu Moni v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 14421 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 183
The Kerala High Court has quashed an order dismissing Malayalam actor Jayasurya's (Jayan Vathakkattu Moni) income tax appeal solely because he failed to appear for the hearing despite notices being issued on four occasions. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that an appellant's non-appearance cannot, by itself, be a ground to dismiss an appeal without considering the grounds raised in it.
Madras HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai v. Sohanraj Uttamchand
Case Number : T.C.A.Nos. 714 and 721 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 257
The Madras High Court on 28 August upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's orders deleting tax additions of Rs. 32.90 crore and Rs. 38.05 crore in cases concerning Long Term Capital Gains claimed from the sale of shares in PFL Infotech Limited and Risa International Limited. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the connected appeals concerning penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income).
Individual Notice To Partners Not Needed For Firm's Tax Recovery: Madras High Court
Case Title : S Venkataramanan v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4
Case Number : WP Nos. 2711 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 259
The Madras High Court on 24 August held that individual notice to partners is not required when the Income Tax Department initiates recovery proceedings against the assets of a defaulting partnership firm. It clarified that individual notice is necessary where recovery proceedings are initiated against the personal assets of an individual partner. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of four connected writ petitions concerning the recovery of income tax dues from RJK Investments and the auction of its properties.
Case Title : Agni Estates and Foundations Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.A.Nos.3427 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 275
On 23 September, the Madras High Court held that the period during which assessment proceedings remain stayed by a court must be excluded while computing the limitation period before determining whether an extension under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) is available. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that the limitation period under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act has to be computed by applying the statutory exclusions first, before examining whether the resulting date falls within the extended period under TOLA.
Patna HC
Patna High Court Refuses To Interfere With ₹60.88 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against FCI Contractor
Case Title : M/s Anjani Kumar Singh v. Addnl. Commissioner (CCO) of CGST and Central Excise & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10227 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT)23
The Patna High Court on 28 August refused to interfere with a Service Tax demand of Rs. 60.88 lakh, along with interest and penalties, raised against a contractor engaged by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya dismissed the writ petition filed by Anjani Kumar Singh, while granting him liberty to pursue the statutory remedy available under law. It observed: “We have noticed that neither before the competent authority/assessing authority nor before this Court, the petitioner has produced the relevant tender document.”
Patna High Court Grants Interim Protection To Bihar Power Co. Against ₹29.23 Crore Tax Demand
Case Title : Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Patna & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8252 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 29
The Patna High Court on 22 September temporarily protected Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited from coercive recovery of an income tax demand of Rs. 29.23 crore. A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra directed the Assessing Officer/Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), as the case may be, to consider the company's application for interim protection within six weeks. Until then, no coercive recovery action can be taken against the company.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Jyoti Sareen v. Union of India and others
Case Number : CWP No.15791-2024 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 51
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the retrospective insertion of Section 147A could not validate reassessment notices issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officers when the statutory provision governing faceless reassessment under Section 151A remained unchanged. A Division Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Rupinderjit Chahal accordingly struck down Section 147A as unconstitutional, holding that the provision did not cure the legal defect identified in earlier judicial decisions concerning the authority of jurisdictional Assessing Officers to issue reassessment notices.
Income-Tax Authorities Should Take Liberal Approach To Condoning Filing Delays: Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Alaknanda Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : CWP No.24673 of 2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 53
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently observed that income-tax authorities should take a liberal approach while considering requests to condone delays in filing income-tax returns where genuine hardship is shown. A Division Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Sunish Bindlish made the observation while setting aside an order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, which rejected a cooperative society's request to condone a 34-day delay in filing its return for assessment year 2020-21.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside PCIT Order Rejecting Delay Condonation In HMT VRS Tax Claim
Case Title : Rajbir Singh v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others
Case Number : CWP No. 18800 of 2023 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 56
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 23 September set aside the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) rejection of an HMT Limited's employee's request to condone the delay in filing a revised return to claim an additional exemption on VRS compensation. A Division Bench of Justices Deepak Sibal and Sunish Bindlish held that delay in filing a revised income tax return cannot be treated as a standalone test while considering a request for condonation under CBDT Circular No. 9/2015.
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Upholds TDS Disallowance Against Hindustan Zinc On UK Know-How Payment
Case Title : Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. The D.C.I.T. (Assessment)
Case Number : D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 65/2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 43
The Rajasthan High Court on 5 September dismissed Hindustan Zinc Limited's appeal against an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order sustaining the disallowance of a tax deduction claimed by the company for payment made towards technical know-how to a UK-based company. A Division Bench comprising Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar upheld the disallowance for Assessment Year 1994-95, holding that the payment made to Davy McKee (Stockton) Limited (DML) was subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act.
25-Year Pendency Cannot Allow Writ Court To Decide Disputed Facts In Tax Case: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5872/2001
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 49
The Rajasthan High Court on 21 August held that the mere pendency of a tax dispute for 25 years does not permit the Court to decide disputed questions of fact in writ proceedings on the basis of pleadings and affidavits, as this would bypass the fact-finding process under the Income Tax Act. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar declined to interfere with reassessment notices issued to Mahesh Kumar Gupta for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1999-2000, holding that the disputed factual issues should be examined by the competent Income Tax authorities.
Case Title : Secure Meters Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur
Case Number : D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 19/2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 50
The Rajasthan High Court on 5 September held that deductions available under different provisions of the Income Tax Act must be computed independently, and the restriction against double deduction can be applied only while allowing the deductions. A Division Bench of Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar allowed Secure Meters Ltd.'s appeal and set aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's finding on the computation of deductions under Sections 80-IA/80-IB and Section 80HHC for Assessment Year 2003-04.
Telangana HC
Telangana High Court Sets Aside 20% Pre-Deposit Condition For Tax Demand Stay In VSAIPPL-SMC Case
Case Title : M/s. VSAIPPL-SMC(JV) v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.27454, 27512 and 27534 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 67
The Telangana High Court on 20 August set aside orders directing VSAIPPL-SMC (JV) to pay 20% of its outstanding tax demand as a condition for staying recovery of the remaining demand, while allowing three writ petitions concerning Assessment Years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy noted that authorities cannot mechanically impose a condition requiring payment of 20% of an outstanding tax demand for granting stay of recovery and must independently exercise their discretion based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Case Title : M/s. Naandi Foundation v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.30560 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 71
The Telangana High Court on 7 September allowed a batch of petitions filed by Naandi Foundation challenging reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20 and set aside the order passed under Section 148A(3) and the consequential notice issued under Section 148. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that the mere need for “further in-depth scrutiny” of transactions cannot constitute information suggesting escapement of income.
Telangana High Court Quashes Reassessment Against Cyberabad Citizens Over Demerged Business Income
Case Title : M/s. Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.20450 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 72
The Telangana High Court on 7 September set aside the order dated 16 April 2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and the consequential notice under Section 148 issued to Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2019-20. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that income already disclosed and offered to tax by the entity to which a business was demerged cannot be treated as escaped income merely because the related transactions appeared against the original company's PAN.
ITAT
ITAT New Delhi Quashes Reassessment Based On Information Already Available On Record
Case Title : JNJ Electronics Limited & Ors. v. DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3220 to 3224/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 271
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 August 2026 held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated by presenting information already available on the assessment record as fresh material. Such proceedings are without jurisdiction. A Bench comprising Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Singh allowed five connected appeals involving Jay Ace Technologies Limited, JNJ Electronics Limited and other companies of the JP Minda Group for Assessment Year 2013-14.
Case Title : ACIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi v. Royal Sales Private Limited
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2401 & 2402/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 272
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 August held that an Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years falling outside the statutory block prescribed under the provision. The provision applies to the assessment of income of a person other than the person searched, where seized material is found to relate to such person. A Bench comprising Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Singh upheld the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in favour of Royal Sales Private Limited and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for assessment years (AYs) 2010-11 and 2011-12.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Revision Against Sr. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi For CCIT's Unauthorised PCIT Notice
Case Title : Shri Mukul Rohatgi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-61(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 3714/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 273
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 28 August quashed the revisionary order passed against Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Assessment Year 2022-23, holding that the Section 263 notice issued by the officer after his promotion to CCIT was without jurisdiction. A Bench comprising Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member Sanjay Awasthi held that an officer promoted as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) cannot exercise the powers of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act without an express authorisation under Section 120(2).
Case Title : M/s HSB Home Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 6520/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 274
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 31 August held that where both purchases and corresponding sales are found to be bogus, the entire purchase value cannot be added to income without accounting for the profit element arising from the transactions. Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Sanjay Awasthi partly allowed HSB Home Solutions Ltd.'s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, upholding the reopening of the assessment and directing the Assessing Officer to apply a 5% gross profit rate to the turnover instead of adding the entire purchase value.
Live Cricket Broadcast Payments Not Taxable as Royalty, Non-Live Broadcast Rights Are: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : ACIT v. Times Content Limited (now known as Time Internet Limited)
Case Number : ITA Nos. 5328, 5331 & 5333/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 275
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has reiterated that payments for live cricket broadcasts are not taxable as royalty. However, the portion attributable to repeat or non-live broadcasts can be treated as royalty. Relying on earlier judgments, including the Supreme court's ruling in CIT v. Sri Lanka Cricket, the tribunal ruled: “Accordingly, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held the live telecast as not the Royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act. However, the repeat telecast i.e. non live telecast is not out of the scope of Royalty."
ITAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹1.53 Crore EDC TDS Demand Against DLF Homes
Case Title : DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited v. DCIT, TDS Circle 72(1), Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 396/DEL/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 278
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside an appellate order upholding a ₹1.53 crore tax demand against DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited over External Development Charges. The tribunal sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA/HSVP) had met the conditions under the Income Tax Act that could protect the developer from being treated as an assessee-in-default.
Omission Of Specified Domestic Transactions From Transfer Pricing Regime Prospective: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 6528/Del/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 277
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 2 September held that the omission of specified domestic transactions from the transfer pricing regime cannot operate retrospectively where the legislature has expressly provided that the amendment will apply prospectively. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal upheld the transfer pricing proceedings against Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd. for Assessment Year 2013-14 involving an adjustment of Rs. 5.12 crore.
Turnover Filter Cannot Be Applied Mechanically To Exclude Transfer Pricing Comparables: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3695/Del/2015 & 2781/Ahd/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 278
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 9 September held that transfer pricing comparables cannot be excluded merely by applying a rigid turnover filter where the entities are otherwise functionally comparable. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal partly allowed twin appeals filed by GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 against transfer pricing adjustments and various corporate tax disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : DCIT v. I Energizer Holdings Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 4654/Del/2015 with Cross Objection No. 397/Del/2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 279
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has ruled that tax authorities must issue a draft assessment order to an eligible taxpayer before passing a final order if they propose a change prejudicial to the taxpayer's interests. A foreign company is expressly included in the definition of an “eligible assessee” for this purpose. The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer “firstly has to mandatorily forward a draft” of the proposed assessment order when such a prejudicial variation is proposed.
ITAT Delhi Rejects Nil MFN Rate Under India-Netherlands DTAA Over Lack Of Specific Notification
Case Title : Travelport Global Distribution System BV v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA No. 2411/Del/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 280
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a 1999 notification amending the India-Netherlands tax treaty only reduced the tax rate on interest from 15% to 10% and did not extend the Nil-rate exemption available under the India-USA or India-Italy treaties. The bench of Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra held that the absence of a specific notification extending the exemption meant that the benefit could not be imported through the treaty's Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause.
Case Title : Universal Tractor Holding LLC v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 2216/Del/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 281
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, has held that interest awarded under a foreign arbitral award loses its separate character as “interest” once the award is enforced and deemed to be a decree by the Delhi High Court. The tribunal ruled that the interest received as part of the decree was not taxable in India. “To our mind therefore, the damages, including the interest has assumed the character of a 'judgement debt' and is beyond the purview of Indian Income Tax Act,” the tribunal observed.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment Against Company Over Defective Notice
Case Title : RNT Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-7
Case Number : ITA Nos. 8528, 8529 and 8530/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 282
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the reassessment proceedings against RNT Metals Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year (AY) 2021-22, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 did not provide the statutory period prescribed for filing the return. It also quashed the company's regular assessment for AY 2022-23, holding that, in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer could not continue the pending Section 143(3) assessment after a Section 132 search and had to follow the special mechanism under Section 148.
Case Title : Oxonian India Foundation v. CIT (Exemptions)
Case Number : ITA No. 5582/Del/2026 and ITA No. 5583/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 283
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the tax department to grant Oxonian India Foundation registration as a charitable organisation and approval under Section 80G. It held that scholarships paid in India to Indian students studying abroad cannot be treated as money spent outside India merely because the students later pursue their education overseas.
ITAT Delhi Dismisses Appeals Against Sahara Airlines After Claims Extinguished In CIRP
Case Title : DCIT, Central Circle-6 v. Sahara Airlines Ltd. (now known as Jet Lite (India) Ltd.) and connected appeals
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2471, 2473 to 2475, 3128, 2992/Del/2011; ITA Nos. 2167/Del/2007, 776/Del/2009, 2082/Del/2015; ITA No. 707/LKN/2002; C.O. No. 72/LKN/2005
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 284
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently dismissed a batch of appeals involving Sahara Airlines Ltd., now known as Jet Lite (India) Ltd., after finding no material to show that the Income Tax Department's claims for the assessment years involved were admitted in the resolution or liquidation proceedings. The CIRP of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. was admitted by the NCLT on June 20, 2019, on an application filed by the State Bank of India under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).