HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Cap On Export Unit Tax Deduction Based On Sister Concern Profits
Case Title : Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.502 OF 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 235
The Bombay High Court has held that deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, which grants tax relief to export-oriented units on profits derived from exports, cannot be restricted merely by comparing the assessee's profit margins with those of a sister concern, in the absence of any material establishing an arrangement to inflate profits. “The capping of the profit share of the Assessee on which deduction under Section 10B could be claimed at 19% solely on the basis of the sister concern having earned/disclosed a profit of 19.03%, and holding the remainder to be taxable is arbitrary and does not stand the test of law."
Case Title : Foseco India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 1123 of 2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 252
The Bombay High Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether companies paying Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) can claim the benefit of lower tax rates under the India–UK tax treaty. The court was hearing appeals filed by Foseco India Ltd. challenging the denial of a refund of excess income tax paid. The issue, though arising in the context of the India–UK tax treaty, could also affect how similar provisions in other tax treaties are applied.
Calcutta HC
Case Title : Graphite India v. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Kolkata
Case Number : ITA 407 OF 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 99
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that deductions claimed on profits from captive power generation and export businesses must be computed independently and cannot be reduced against each other where the incomes arise from distinct sources. “The deduction granted under Section 80-IA cannot be reduced while computing profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC where the deductions arise from independent businesses,” the court held.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Aabid Ali Khan v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA 262/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 421
The Delhi High Court has reduced the addition to the taxpayers' income from Rs.80.42 lakh to Rs.68.47 lakh in a cash seizure case, holding that the Assessing Officer could not rely on the assessee's claim of having “borrowed/collected” Rs.80.42 lakh from 17 persons after rejecting that very explanation, terming such an approach “perverse” in the absence of any independent material. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar partly allowed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reducing the addition to the amount of cash actually recovered.
Delhi High Court Says 100% Shareholding Not Enough To Tax Shareholders For Company's Income
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi v. Pradeep Wig Neera Wig
Case Number : ITA 681/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 433
The Delhi High Court has held that shareholders, even if holding all the shares of a company, are only owners of the shares and not of the company's assets, and therefore the company's income cannot be taxed in their hands. “Legally speaking, the respondents being shareholders of the company, even if holding all the shares (100%), are only owners of the shares of the company and not the owners of the property as such and similarly the income which that company has earned cannot ipso-facto be treated to be an income of the assessees, who are residents of India.”
ITAT Can't Grant Tax Benefits To Charitable Institution Without Proper Inquiry Delhi HC
Case Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption v. Sukoon SP Foundation
Case Number : ITA 71/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 444
The Delhi High Court has held that a tax appellate tribunal cannot directly grant tax exemption benefits to a charitable trust without first ensuring that a proper inquiry into its activities has been carried out. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar passed the ruling while setting aside an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had directed the grant of registration and approval to Sukoon SP Foundation, a charitable trust.
Case Title : Kapil Agarwal v. CPIO
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8481/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 448
The Delhi High Court has held that a husband's income tax returns constitute “personal information” and are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless a larger public interest justifies such disclosure. The court set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing their disclosure to his wife in a matrimonial dispute. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that income-related details sought by the wife did not fall within the “larger public interest” exception and that disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Gauhati HC
In Faceless Assessment, Income Tax Revision Cannot Be Decided Without Inquiry: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Jennyfar Lalzarliani Hrahsel v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 27/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 13
The Gauhati High Court has held that the revisional authority cannot dispose of revision proceedings in a mechanical manner under the Income Tax Act (Section 264), which allows a taxpayer to seek revision of an order through a faceless process without making, or causing, an enquiry. This is especially so where the assessee claims difficulty in producing voluminous records and seeks verification at the place of business. The court referred to an earlier Division Bench ruling that held that revision under the Income Tax Act (Section 264) is an alternative remedy to appeal.
Kerala HC
Case Title : The Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 14230 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 73
The Kerala High Court, on 8 April, held that approval granted by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax satisfies the statutory requirement under Section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act for imposing penalties. It clarified that the term “Joint Commissioner” includes an Additional Commissioner under Section 2(28C) of the Act. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Service Cooperative Bank Limited, holding that the challenge failed on the limited question of the validity of approval, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the penalty proceedings, and left the petitioner free to pursue statutory remedies.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Tax Evasion Case, Says Wilfulness Is Matter For Trial
Case Title : Abdul Khader Mohammed Farook v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : Crl.O.P.No.9848 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 118
The Madras High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a taxpayer accused of failing to pay admitted income tax dues, noting that the issues raised had already been urged before the trial court and could not be re-agitated at a belated stage. A single-judge bench of Justice M. Niraml Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by Abdul Khader Mohammed Farook seeking to quash proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, for alleged wilful attempt to evade payment of tax under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Telangana HC
Case Title : The Ismailia Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Circle 5(1), Hyderabad
Case Number : INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.132 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 22
The Telangana High Court has held that interest earned by the Hyderabad-based co-operative credit society on bank deposits made from its business funds is eligible for deduction under the provision applicable to co-operative societies providing credit facilities to their members. "It is clear that eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) requires that the claim must relate to the profits and gains of business attributable to one or more of the activities specified therein. In the present case, the appellant is a cooperative society providing credit facilities, which falls directly under the specified activities. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) of the IT Act",it observed.
Case Title : The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITTA.No.47 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 23
The Telangana High Court has dismissed the revenue's appeal against Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. and held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer under Section 142A of the Income Tax Act is untenable where the taxpayer's books of accounts are neither rejected nor found defective. It also held that a reference under Section 142A can be made only during the course of assessment or reassessment proceedings and not for the purpose of initiating such proceedings.
Telangana High Court Upholds 1% Royalty Cap On Export Sales, Dismisses Gulf Oil Appeals
Case Title : Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income tax
Case Number : I.T.T.A.Nos.526 of 2015 & 101 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 25
The Telangana High Court on 26 March, upheld the restriction of royalty on export sales to 1% for Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd., holding that regulatory approvals permitting higher royalty rates do not determine arm's length price under transfer pricing provisions, which operate as a self-contained code under Sections 92 to 92F of the Income Tax Act. The Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao held that no substantial question of law arose in the matter and affirmed the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Telangana High Court Quashes IT Reassessment On Issue Already Examined, Calls It Change of Opinion
Case Title : Piramal Swasthya Management and Research Institute v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another
Case Number : WP.No.12288 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 26
The Telangana High Court has set aside income tax reassessment proceedings against Piramal Swasthya Management and Research Institute, holding that the tax department cannot reopen an issue it had already examined and accepted during the original assessment. “once the assessment proceedings are completed and assessment order is passed, the 1st respondent cannot reopen the assessment proceedings by issuing the impugned show-cause notice, dt.27.02.2023, alleging that Form 10 had not been electronically submitted, thereby disentitling the petitioner to the benefit of Sections 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act in respect of the amount of Rs.3,43,34,021/-,” the court held.
ITAT
Case Title : Assam Logistics v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No.4549/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEl) 113
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, directed deletion of a Rs. 1.05 crore addition on a partnership firm, holding that no addition could be made in the hands of a dissolved firm when the same receipts had already been offered to tax in the hands of the successor proprietorship. Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal observed, "no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee firm which has already been dissolved in preceding year for the contract receipts from M/s Maruti Suzuki India which are offered for tax by the surviving partnership Sh. Raja Singh in his proprietorship under the same name & style as M/s Assam Logistics. Any further addition for the same receipts in the hands of the assessee firm tantamount to double taxation of an income which is not permitted.”
Case Title : Amazon Retail India Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1
Case Number : ITA No. 3532/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 115
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Amazon Retail India Private Limited challenging a revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, holding that the assessing officer failed to conduct necessary enquiries in a case selected for complete scrutiny before accepting the return declaring a loss of Rs. 639.73 crore. A coram comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Amitabh Shukla held that the assessment order suffered from a complete lack of enquiry on issues for which the case was selected for scrutiny.
Depreciation Cannot Be Combined With Revival Of Original Cost For Indexation Benefit: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Shree Vaidehi Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 273/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHA) 114
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 21 April held that a taxpayer cannot claim depreciation on an asset in earlier years and thereafter seek to revive its original cost of acquisition to claim higher indexation benefits while computing capital gains on its sale. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha dismissed an appeal filed by Shree Vaidehi Impex Pvt Ltd for assessment year 2016–17 against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Cash Receipt In Agricultural Land Sale Not 'Unexplained' Where Duly Explained: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : Angad Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals), Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 5506/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 116
The New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 April, held that cash receipts arising from a duly evidenced agricultural land sale could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 where the identity of the payer, genuineness of the transaction, and supporting documentation were established. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member S Rifaur Rahman allowed the appeal filed by Angad Developers Pvt Ltd against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2016-17 and deleted the addition of Rs. 75 lakh.
ITAT Delhi Upholds Deletion Of ₹18.63 Crore, Says Direct Payment To Developer Not Unexplained Cash
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sachin Gaur
Case Number : ITA No. 7244/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 117
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 April upheld the deletion of an addition of Rs. 18.63 crore made against Sachin Gaur, an individual taxpayer, and held that payments made directly by subsequent buyers to a developer cannot be treated as unexplained money of the seller under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal held: “It is observed that while making the said addition A.O. failed to establish that the Assessee has been benefitted to the tune of Rs. 18,63,37,342/- in the said transaction.”
Mumbai ITAT Allows ₹13.59 Cr Write-Off On Overseas Subsidiary Investment As Business Loss
Case Title : ACIT v. Shreepati Build Infra Investment Limited
Case Number : ITA Nos. 6161 and 6160/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 118
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 April held that losses from investments and loans to a wholly owned foreign subsidiary, made for business expansion and commercial expediency, are deductible as business losses even if irrecoverable. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Narender Kumar Choudhry and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar further held that no proof of recovery efforts is required once the amount is written off in the books. It held: “The investment was not made with an intention to earn dividend or create a capital asset, but to facilitate business operations overseas.”
ITAT Chennai Expunges Direction To Reopen Assessments For Years Not Under Appeal
Case Title : Mr. Chandanmal Nagaraj v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 3855/CHNY/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 119
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has expunged a direction issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to reopen the earlier assessments of individual taxpayer Chandanmal Nagaraj, holding that such directions are beyond its powers. The coram comprising Judicial Member Manu Kumar Giri and Accountant Member Inturi Rama Rao passed the order on April 30, 2026. The case related to Assessment Year 2017–18. While granting relief for this year, the CIT(A) had also directed the Assessing Officer to reopen the individual taxpayer's assessments for AY 2015–16 and 2016–17.
Case Title : Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) v. Madras Motor Sports Trust
Case Number : ITA No. 2720/CHNY/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 120
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently reiterated that the principle of estoppel has no application in tax proceedings and appellate authorities can entertain new claims from taxpayers even if they were not made in the original return. “the law is well settled to the extent that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) is confined to the power of Assessing Officer alone. There are no fetters on the appellate authorities to entertain a new claim, because the principle of estoppel have no application in tax proceedings.”, the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Capgemini IT Solutions India Private Limited v. ACIT Circle-15(1)(2)
Case Number : ITA No. 1102/Mum/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 121
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Capgemini IT Solutions India Private Limited cannot be charged interest for delay in paying advance tax for the period before it started its business in October 2019. “The levy of interest under section 234C in respect of the instalments falling due prior to 17.10.2019 is not sustainable in law.”, it observed. The bench of Judicial Member Kavitha Rajagopal and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar passed the order on April 30, 2026, while allowing the company's appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).