HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : B.L. Agro Industries Limited, Bareilly Thru. Mr. Amit Kumar Authorised Signatory v. Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Govt. of India New Delhi Thru. Secy. and others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 77 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 63
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that the period of 18 months for deciding a settlement application under Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, begins to run when the application first stands allotted to an Interim Board for Settlement and does not begin afresh when the Central Board of Direct Taxes later transfers the application from one Interim Board to another. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held “The argument of the respondents if accepted, would result in an extension of the statutory period of 18 months on each allotment/transfer from one IBS to the other.” “This argument, in our view, is not sustainable as the period prescribed under Section 245D(4A)(iii) cannot be extended once the Interim Board takes cognizance of the interim application pending before it.”
Bombay HC
Case Title : Sedemac Mechatronics Limited v. Department of Scientific & Industrial Research & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2654 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 452
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an application for the DSIR's report on eligible in-house R&D expenditure (Form 3CL) cannot be treated as delayed where the company had submitted the required audit report (Form 3CLA) within the deadline for filing its income tax return. “It must therefore be accepted that uploading of Form 3CLA by an Assessee to its e-filing account on the website of the Income Tax Department, on or before the due date of filing of the Return of Income, satisfies the requirement of Rule 6(7A)(c),” the court observed.
Calcutta HC
ITAT Cannot Automatically Confirm Adverse Order For Non-Payment Of Costs: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Ajitnath Suppliers Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kolkata And Ors.
Case Number : ITAT 120 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 194
The Calcutta High Court on 7 August held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot make payment of costs a condition for continuation of an appeal or direct that non-payment would automatically revive or confirm an adverse appellate order. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar clarified that while the ITAT can impose costs for procedural lapses, such costs cannot be made a condition precedent to a litigant's statutory right to have an appeal adjudicated, particularly where the Tribunal itself has found a violation of natural justice.
Chhattisgarh HC
Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Plea Against ₹19.75 Lakh Property Tax Demand On Loyola School
Case Title : Madhya Pradesh Jesuits v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Case Number : WPT No. 12 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 23
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Madhya Pradesh Jesuits challenging property tax demand notices of around Rs. 19.75 lakh raised against Loyola Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that the school could not claim property tax exemption based on a Section 12A registration certificate, which is required for eligible educational institutions to claim the exemption. The certificate, however, was issued in favour of “The President, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, Kunkuri P.O., Raigarh Distt.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 v. M/S Etawah Chakeri (Kanpur) Highway Private Limited
Case Number : ITA 160/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 803
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot act as an economist to determine the expected rate of return while examining a company's share valuation. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta added that while the AO may identify flaws in the valuation methodology adopted by a taxpayer, he cannot substitute the commercial assumptions underlying a recognized valuation method with his own.
Case Title : Delhi Tax Bar Association Through Its Secretary K G Bansal v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9365/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 805
The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Private Secretaries of Supreme Court and High Court judges who have filed their income tax returns under the new tax regime to furnish their PAN Card details. The Court had also directed furnishing other details like assessment year, date of filing and Acknowledgment Number (of Return) to the Income Tax Department, to ensure that their returns are not processed pending adjudication of a plea concerning the tax treatment of judicial allowances.
S.147A Income Tax Act Challenge: Delhi High Court Orders Status Quo On Recovery, Penalty Proceedings
Case Title : Neena Wadhwa v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-18 & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12166/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 816
The Delhi High Court has directed that the status quo be maintained on recovery and penalty proceedings against two assessees who have challenged the constitutional validity of the newly inserted Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which retrospectively clarifies the role of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) in reassessment proceedings. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta passed the direction while allowing applications filed by Neena Wadhwa and Surender Kumar Wadhwa to amend their pending writ petitions in terms of directions issued by the Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Over Non-Supply Of Material To Taxpayer
Case Title : Kumar Santosh v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11466/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 824
The Delhi High Court has stayed reassessment proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the assessee submitted that the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer (AO) had not been supplied to him. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta issued notice to the Income Tax Department and stayed further proceedings pursuant to notice dated June 29. Reassessment proceedings had been initiated in relation to insurance commission amounting to Rs. 90,64,748 received by the Petitioner from IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside ITAT's Ex-Parte Order Against AAI Over Non-Service Of Hearing Notice
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v. DCIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA 499/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 825
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot decide an appeal ex-parte without first ensuring that notice of the hearing has been issued and served on the concerned party. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta allowed an appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and set aside the ITAT's order, which had disposed AAI's appeal on merits in its absence. The Court observed that the Tribunal had committed a procedural irregularity by proceeding to hear and decide the appeal without ascertaining whether notice of the hearing date had been issued and served upon AAI.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 188/2025 and ITA 191/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 826
The Delhi High Court has dismissed appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against Suzuki Motorcycle India, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's rejection of an Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) adjustment based on the Bright Line Test The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta followed the High Court's earlier decisions in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax which held that the Bright Line Test is not a method sanctioned by law for determining transfer pricing adjustments concerning AMP expenses.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3 v. Colossus Trade Links Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 637/2026
The Delhi High Court has recently issued notice on appeals filed by the Income Tax Department challenging an ITAT order which had annulled certain assessment orders on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the assessee not having filed a cross-appeal on that issue. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was hearing Revenue's challenge in connection with nine assessment years from 2010-11 to 2018-19. The assessments had arisen pursuant to proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) following a search conducted in the JBM Group of companies and associates on October 5, 2017.
Case Title : Dish Infra Services Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7-1, Delhi and Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9080/2026
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether an audit objection can constitute “information” for initiating proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a period prior to April 1, 2021. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the issue raised “seminal questions” requiring determination, particularly in view of the larger legal implications involved. The case arose from a notice issued to the assessee under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2019-20.
No Unaccounted Assets Or Investments Found: Delhi High Court Rejects Revenue's Plea For Higher Tax
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Uttam Chand Rakesh Kumar
Case Number : ITA 478/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 832
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department seeking to levy tax at a higher rate under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had recorded any finding regarding the existence of undisclosed or unaccounted assets or investments. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta upheld the ITAT order, observing that in the absence of unexplained investments, the very applicability of Section 69 was “out of question”. Consequently, the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE could not be invoked either.
Case Title : Campus Activewear Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6934/2024
The Delhi High Court has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to remain present before it and explain the “inordinate delay” in refunding Campus Activewear if the due payment along with applicable interest is not made by the next date. The refund has remained unpaid for last four years. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was informed by the Income Tax Department counsel that the requisite exercise for processing the Petitioner-company's refund was underway and the needful would be done within four weeks.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Ahmedabad South Indian Association Charitable Trust v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Exemption, Ahmedabad
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 9731 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 111
The Gujarat High Court has recently quashed reassessment proceedings against a charitable trust after the Revenue told the court that its tax portal had no functionality to withdraw an assessment order once it had been passed and accounted for. The assessment order was passed despite an interim order restraining the Assessing Officer from doing so. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati ruled, "Revenue cannot cite the excuse of nonavailability of any functionality in the system of withdrawing the assessment order, which has been passed in defiance of the interim orders / orders of this Court. The power under section 264 of the Act is always available for the higher authorities i.e. the Commissioner to either modify or set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer in case, it is found that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order de hors the interim orders passed by this Court".
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : Ruchira Papers Ltd. v. HPSEBL & Another
Case Number : CWP No. 9360 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 30
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed Section 3(1)(xi) of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity (Duty) Act, 2009, to the extent that it prescribed electricity duty on electricity generated by consumers through diesel generating sets or any other mode for captive or standby use. The court held that the charging provision under Section 3 of the 2009 Act does not cover electricity generated by a consumer from its own source for its own consumption. The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma allowed the petition filed by Ruchira Papers Ltd. It held that electricity duty cannot be imposed on a consumer generating electricity for its own consumption when the charging provision does not cover such a situation.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions v. M/s Ananda Social & Education Trust
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 112/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 140
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed two Income Tax Department appeals concerning alleged unaccounted fees at an educational trust. It ruled that alleged unaccounted fee additions could not be sustained merely on the basis of loose sheets and similar seized documents in the absence of corroborative material. “Thus, the Revenue has not been able to corroborate the loose sheets and other seized materials on the basis of which the additions have been made. In the absence of any corroborative material, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the additions could not be sustained merely on the basis of the loose sheets and similar documents,” a Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao ruled.
Case Title : Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited v. DY. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3025 OF 2005
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 141
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a 2010 amendment to the Income Tax Act, which widened the scope of taxation of fees for technical services paid to non-residents, cannot be applied retrospectively to create a tax liability on past transactions. The court found that the amendment did more than clarify the existing law, as it widened the charging provision by removing the requirement that the technical services must have been rendered in India. “The impugned Amendment Act—Finance Act 2010 – is to be read down as prospectively applicable and not retrospectively applicable from 01.06.1976.”, It, therefore, ruled.
Case Title : Raitha Seva Sahakara v. The Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3419 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 142
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that Bank of Baroda had no statutory authority to create a lien over a cooperative society's current account for collection of TDS on cash withdrawals. It held that the responsibility to deduct the tax under Section 194N of the Income Tax Act rested on the bank. Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed that Section 194N placed the responsibility for deducting the prescribed tax on the banking company making the payment.
Patna HC
Patna High Court Quashes Reassessment Based On Bank's Wrong Reporting Of ₹12.50 Lakh FD As ₹12.50 Cr
Case Title : Satya Narayan Jha v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16288 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 20
The Patna High Court on 10 August quashed income tax reassessment proceedings against Satya Narayan Jha after Union Bank of India wrongly reported his fixed deposit of Rs. 12.50 lakh as Rs. 12.50 crore to the Income Tax Department, holding that the Department had relied on incorrect information. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the taxpayer to be given an opportunity to respond before reassessment, relied on the bank's incorrect information.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : UCWeb Mobile Private Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi and others
Case Number : Civil Writ Petition No. 4329 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 46
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently set aside the final assessment order passed against UCWeb Mobile Private Ltd. while its objections to the draft assessment order were pending before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The court held that the assessment violated the procedure prescribed under Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, which requires the Assessing Officer to pass the final assessment in conformity with directions issued by the DRP after considering the assessee's objections. A Division Bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Rupinderjit Chahal allowed UCWeb Mobile's writ petition. It set aside the final assessment order, the consequential demand notice and the notice initiating penalty proceedings.
ITAT
ITAT Delhi Cuts Share Of BBC Global News' India Ad Revenue Attributed To Indian PE From 15% To 12%
Case Title : BBC Global News Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Intl Tax 1(1)(2)
Case Number : ITA Nos. 52 to 56/DEL/2025 & ITA No. 1847/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 262
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has reduced from 15% to 12% the share of BBC Global News Limited's Indian advertisement revenue treated as profit attributable to its Indian Permanent Establishment (PE). The same finding has been applied to assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23. The ITAT took assessment year 2022-23 as the lead case. It held that while an increase from the earlier 8.75% rate was justified, the assessing officer had fixed the 15% rate merely on estimation.
ITAT Delhi Deletes Over ₹7,800 Crore Tax Adjustments Against Samsung India
Case Title : Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi
Case Number : ITA Nos. 461/Del/2021 and 1955/Del/2021; SA Nos. 293/Del/2025 and 239/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 263
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has deleted about ₹3,605 crore in adjustments for AY 2016-17 and ₹4,211 crore for AY 2017-18 in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal also excluded Verizon Communications Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable for Samsung India's networking segment and upheld its use of the Berry Ratio for benchmarking distribution transactions. The bench comprising Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra found Verizon functionally different from Samsung India's networking business. About 92% of Samsung India's networking revenue came from trading, while Verizon derived 99.99% of its revenue from services.
SaaS Support Does Not Amount To Transfer Of Technology Under India-US DTAA: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Branch Metrics Inc. v. DCIT/ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 1(1)(2), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 3599/Del/2023 and IT(IT)A No. 1122/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 264
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has recently held that payments received by US-based Branch Metrics Inc. from Indian customers for its standard SaaS products do not qualify as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US DTAA. The tribunal found that while customers could use the platform, they were not enabled to apply the technology underlying it, failing the “make available” test under the treaty. A bench comprising Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal accordingly deleted the ₹24.16 crore addition for assessment year (AY) 2021-22.
Case Title : Blossom Nandi [Legal Representative of deceased assessee Santanu Nundy] v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(1)(1)
Case Number : ITA No. 2552/Mum/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 265
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the CIT(A) has discretion to set aside an assessment and send the case back for a fresh assessment. However, the CIT(A) must first decide the taxpayer's basic legal objections on whether the reassessment itself was valid. Under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, the CIT(A) has the power to set aside an assessment made under Section 144. The ITAT observed that exercising this power does not remove the CIT(A)'s obligation to decide substantive legal grounds challenging the reassessment.