SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Vishwaprasad Alva vs Union of India
Case Number : WP(C) No. 114 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 102
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the search and seizure powers over digital devices under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its corresponding provision, Section 247 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, which is set to come into force from April 1, 2026. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the Government of India seeking modifications or clarifications regarding the provision. The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
Case Title : PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 VS DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD.
Case Number : DIARY NO 4477/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 108
The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court which had granted relief to DLF Home Developers Ltd. by deleting a disallowance of Rs 80.66 crore made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. The Court held that the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and affirmed by the Delhi High Court warranted no interference.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi HC
Case Title : BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4.1., Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 19738/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 255
The Delhi High Court has held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be treated as time-barred when the delay occurred due to adjournments sought by the taxpayer during proceedings under Section 148A. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar dismissed writ petitions filed by two private companies challenging notices issued for Assessment Year (AY) 2017–18 on the ground that they were issued after the limitation period had expired.
Gujarat HC
DTVSV Scheme 2024 Inapplicable To Reassessments Arising From Search Proceedings: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3627 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 29
The Gujarat High Court on 18 February held that taxpayers whose reassessment proceedings arise from incriminating material discovered during search operations under Sections 132 or 132A of the Income Tax Act are not eligible to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed a batch of writ petitions led by Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, which challenged the rejection of their applications under the scheme.
Case Title : Gulbrandsen Pvt. Ltd. v. DY. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15851 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 31
The Gujarat High Court on 24 February ruled that the Revenue cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on the same material that was already scrutinised in the original proceedings, which later lapsed due to the Assessing Officer's failure to meet the statutory deadlines. The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that reopening an assessment in such circumstances is an impermissible attempt to “camouflage” administrative remissness and indirectly extend the period of limitation for finalising an assessment.
Case Title : Jay Pareshbhai Soni v. Income Tax Officer Ward & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2902 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 33
The Gujarat High Court has set aside an order transferring an assessee's income-tax reassessment case from Ahmedabad to Rajkot after finding that the transfer was made without granting the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing as required under the Income Tax Act. The division bench of Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that in the present case the transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act could not be sustained since it had been effected without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which is mandatory under the provision.
CIT Cannot Reject Delay Condonation Plea On Grounds Beyond Scope of Application: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Shri Jain Dehrasar Upasraya Ane Sadharan v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9992 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 34
The Gujarat High Court on 9 March held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, the Authority cannot examine issues beyond the scope of the delay condonation request. A Division Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) wrongly rejected Shri Jain Dehrasar Upasraya Ane Sadharan's delay condonation plea for filing Form 10B by questioning its registration status instead of examining the explanation for the delay.
Case Title : Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Vadodara
Case Number : R/TAX APPEAL NO.640 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 36
The Gujarat High Court has held that money received from transferring a self-generated trademark before 2002 cannot be taxed as capital gains, as the law allowing such taxation came into force only later. The Court noted that Section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act was amended with effect from April 1, 2002, to allow taxation of transfers of trademarks by treating their cost of acquisition as nil, and the amendment cannot apply to earlier transactions.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
J&K&L High Court Upholds Income Tax Addition After Taxpayer Gave Inflated Stock Statement To Bank
Case Title : Ajay Food Products vs Income Tax Officer and others, 2026
Case Number : ITA No. 16/2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 8
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday upheld an addition to taxable income made on the basis of a stock statement furnished by a taxpayer to a bank while availing a cash credit facility, holding that the tax authorities were justified in relying on the declaration where discrepancies with the books of account remained unexplained. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed an appeal filed by Ajay Food Products challenging an addition made by the Income Tax Department on the basis of stock statements submitted to the bank.
Case Title : Vidya Sagar Sharma vs Union of India, 2026
Case Number : WP(C) No. 536/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 10
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, failure to comply with the conditions of the scheme results in automatic revival of all proceedings withdrawn earlier, irrespective of whether they were initiated by the assessee or the Income Tax Department. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal ruled that Section 4(6) of the act applies to “all proceedings and claims” without distinction, and therefore revival operates by law even in respect of revision petitions filed by the assessee.
Madras HC
No Penalty For Erroneous Claim Based On Bona Fide Interpretation Of Tax Treaty: Madras High Court
Case Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Indian Overseas Bank
Case Number : TCA Nos. 64 and 65 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 71
The Madras High Court on 5 February held that an erroneous claim of double taxation relief by itself cannot lead to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the taxpayer has fully disclosed the relevant income and the claim arises from a bona fide interpretation of law. A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineini Sudheer Kumar heard appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against Indian Overseas Bank challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), which had deleted the penalty imposed on the bank for the assessment years 2006–07 and 2007–08.
Penalty Order Is In Limitation If Issued Within Six Months Of Appellate Order: Madras High Court
Case Title : Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WP No. 21006 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 70
The Madras High Court on 6 February held that when penalty proceedings arise from assessment orders and the assessment is challenged on appeal, the limitation period for issuing a penalty can be computed from the appellate order. A penalty issued within the prescribed period after the appellate decision is therefore not time-barred. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy upheld a penalty imposed on actor Joseph Vijay under the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing that the penalty order dated 30 June 2022 was issued within the statutory period under Section 275(1)(a). The Court noted that appellate proceedings effectively reset the clock for penalty orders arising from assessments.
Vehicle Possession And Document Transfer Concludes A Sale For Capital Gains Tax: Madras High Court
Case Title : Dr. Arvind Kumar R Shaw v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P.No.14256 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 73
The Madras High Court has held that delivery of a vehicle along with its original documents may constitute a completed sale for income-tax purposes, even if the registration certificate is not formally transferred in the buyer's name. A Bench comprising Justice C. Saravanan dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr. Arvind Kumar R. Shaw (the petitioner), upholding the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department treating the sale of his Rolls‑Royce as a short-term capital gains transaction for the assessment year 2018–19.
Rajasthan HC
Taxpayer Must Be Heard Before 'Draconian' Step Of Provisional Attachment: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : ARL Infratech Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1217/2026
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 95
The Rajasthan High Court on 6 March observed that the minimum requirement before invoking provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to grant the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing to make the payment, or part of it, given the “draconian” nature of the provision. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma was hearing a petition by ARL Infratech Limited challenging an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax directing provisional attachment of the petitioner's property on the apprehension that a tax demand of around Rs. 1.3 crores might be created.
ITAT
Builder Incentives For Timely Payment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income from Other Sources': ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Sh. Satya Prasan Rajguru v. DCIT Circle
Case Number : ITA No. 2550/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 58
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 February held that rebates or concessions provided by a builder under an apartment buyer's agreement cannot be treated as taxable income under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal was hearing the appeal filed by Satya Prasan Rajguru against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2021–22.
ITAT Mumbai Deletes Additions On Individual Taxpayer, Rules Cash Redeposits Not “Unexplained”
Case Title : Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 59
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 February deleted additions made on cash deposits in the bank account of an individual taxpayer, holding that redeposits of earlier withdrawals cannot be treated as unexplained money in the absence of evidence that the cash was used elsewhere. A Bench comprising Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant and Judicial Member Kavitha Rajagopal allowed the appeals of the taxpayer, Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia, for Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-24.
Partial Use Of Director's Farmhouse For Business Does Not Bar Depreciation Claim: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : DCIT v. Malhotra Cables Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1317-1324/Del/2025; 1108, 1107, 1097 & 1102/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 60
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 11 March 2026 upheld the deletion of disallowances relating to repair expenses and depreciation claimed on a farmhouse owned by Jagadish Chander Malhotra, Director of Malhotra Cables Pvt. Ltd, after finding that part of the premises was used for business purposes. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Challa Nagendra Prasad and Accountant Member M. Balaganesh affirmed the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which had allowed the expenses.
ITAT Ahmedabad Grants Digvijay Lions Foundation Final Chance For 12A Renewal With ₹10,000 Cost
Case Title : Digvijay Lions Foundation v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
Case Number : ITA No. 169/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 61
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 February granted Digvijay Lions Foundation a final opportunity to furnish documents for renewal of its charitable registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha, was hearing the foundation's appeal against rejection of its renewal application by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad.
Goodwill Arising From Amalgamation Eligible For Depreciation In Subsequent Years: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : ACIT v. Unicorn Packaging LLP & Ors.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 893 to 898/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 62
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that depreciation on goodwill arising from an amalgamation can be continued in subsequent years, as long as it pertains to the same intangible asset already recognized in the foundational year. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha upheld the deletion of disallowance of depreciation claimed by Unicorn Packers Pvt. Ltd. (now part of the taxpayer LLP) on goodwill arising from its amalgamation with Urmin Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Charitable Registration Cannot Be Cancelled For Disputed Transactions Alone: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : Richmond Educational Society Vs DCIT/ACIT
Case Number : ITA No. 4779/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2024-25)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 63
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 11 March held that the registration of a charitable institution under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of alleged irregularities in certain financial transactions, as long as the core charitable activities continue to be genuine. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Challa Nagendra Prasad and Accountant Member M. Balaganesh restored the charitable registration of Richmond Educational Society and set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, observing that financial transactions alone cannot justify cancellation.
ITAT Ahmedabad Upholds 100% Deduction After Expansion Of Sintex's Himachal Unit
Case Title : DCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 715/Ahd/2025 with Cross Objection No. 88/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 64
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the eligibility of Sintex Industries Ltd. to claim 100% deduction on profits under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act even after the initial five-year period where the eligible unit had undertaken substantial expansion. The tribunal coram of Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs 59.53 crore made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2010-11.