SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Ernst & Young U.S. LLP v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : Special Leave Petition(C) No. 36320/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) issued notice on a plea filed by Ernst & Young U.S. LLP challenging a Delhi High Court judgment holding that payments received towards employees deputed (seconded) to Indian entities were taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS). A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran agreed to examine whether salary reimbursements to EY US can be taxed as FTS when the deputed employees work under the control of Indian entities and tax has already been deducted from their salaries.
Income Tax Deduction Not Claimed By Taxpayer Cannot Be Disallowed: Supreme Court
Case Title : M/s. Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 8932 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 343
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27) ruled that an Assessing Officer cannot disallow an amount that an assessee never claimed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961. “Disallowing an amount not treated as an allowance by the Assessee is impermissible under the Act, 1961. The negative impact on the taxable income stated by the Assessee should have been taken into account; i.e., by factoring in this entry, the income has come down, and therefore the tax has come down,” a bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria ruled.
Income Tax Reassessment Cannot Be Reopened On Mere Change Of Opinion: Supreme Court
Case Title : Chetan Sabharwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28(1), New Delhi
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 13953 of 2026 and connected appeals.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 344
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that a mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening an income tax assessment, reiterating that an assessing officer has the power to reassess but not review an earlier decision. It can, however, reopen an assessment when there is tangible material suggesting that income has escaped assessment. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made these observations while dismissing appeals filed by Chetan Sabharwal and his brother Nitin Sabharwal against reassessment notices issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar v. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (Connected Appeals)
Case Number : Special Leave petition(C) No. 14546 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 347
The Supreme Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot complete reassessment proceedings without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A taxpayer's participation in the proceedings cannot make up for the absence of such a notice, the court ruled. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that Section 292BB of the Act can protect the department against certain objections concerning the service of a notice. However, it cannot cure a situation where the notice was never issued.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Limitation For Appeal From ITAT Order Begins On Receipt, Not Pronouncement: Bombay High Court
Case Title : GS Strategic Investments Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : Interim Application (L) No. 30896 of 2026 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 30455 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 610
The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period for filing an appeal against an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order begins when the aggrieved party receives a copy of the order, not when it is pronounced. “Mere knowledge of the order, by way of pronouncement is not enough to hold that day to be the first day on which the limitation commences,” a division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed.
Delhi HC
Charitable Activity Need Not Be Free Of Cost; Subsidised Services Can Qualify: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Delhi v. Orientals Ardaas Foundation Delhi
Case Number : ITA 225/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1174
The Delhi High Court has held that charitable activities need not necessarily be provided free of cost, observing that charging partial, subsidised or concessional amounts for accommodation or services does not by itself make an organisation's activities commercial. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary made the observation while directing the Income Tax Department to grant registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to Orientals Ardaas Foundation Delhi, a company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Case Title : DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 74(1), Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15467/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1176
The Delhi High Court has quashed a tax demand against DLF Home Developers for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) on external development charges paid to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), holding that the demand was contrary to the law laid down in its earlier judgment. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary quashed the assessment order dated March 22, 2023, and a subsequent order dated August 31, 2026, rejecting the company's rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
'Assessee In Default Has Not Committed A Sin': Delhi High Court Orders ₹1.93 Crore Tax Refund
Case Title : Mohan Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16193/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1177
The Delhi High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to refund ₹1.93 crore, with applicable interest, to a taxpayer after holding that the recovery of the amount during the pendency of stay applications was a “colourable exercise of power.” The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary observed that merely because an assessee had been declared to be in default did not mean that they had committed a sin so as to be deprived of the benefit of circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
Delhi High Court Restores Income Tax Appeal Decided Ex-Parte Before Scheduled Hearing Date
Case Title : MEHAK ASRI v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15512/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1191
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissing a taxpayer's appeal ex-parte, after finding that the authority had decided the matter before the date fixed for hearing and before the deadline for filing written submissions. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary was hearing a petition filed by Mehak Asri challenging the CIT(A)'s order dated June 25, 2026, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Gujarat HC
Cash Sales During Demonetisation Can't Alone Justify Addition At Higher Tax Rate: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad v. Zinzuwadia and Sons
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 125 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 161
The Gujarat High Court has held that cash sales recorded during demonetisation cannot, by themselves, justify an addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by shifting the burden of proof onto a taxpayer when the sales have already been offered to tax as business income. A Bench comprising Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Nirzar S. Desai dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of a Rs. 7.88 crore addition made against Zinzuwadia and Sons, a jewellery firm, for alleged bogus sales during demonetisation.
Commission To Foreign Agents For Procuring Export Orders Not Taxable In India: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 v. DML Exim Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal Nos. 115 and 116 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 162
The Gujarat High Court has held that commission paid to foreign agents for soliciting customers for an Indian company's export business is not taxable in India when the services are rendered abroad and the recipients have no business connection in the country. The court ruled that the commission was business income for the recipients, not fees for technical services. No tax deduction at source was therefore required on the payments in question.
ITAT
ITAT Sets Aside Revision Order Over ₹5.65 Crore COVID-19 Relief Donation To Medica Hospitals
Case Title : Eastern IndiaHealthcare Foundation v. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata
Case Number : I.T.A.No.2659/KOL/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 301
On 26 October, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed revision proceedings initiated against Eastern India Healthcare Foundation over its donation of Rs. 5.65 crore to Medica Hospitals Private Limited for COVID-19 relief activities. A Bench comprising Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar and Judicial Member Pradip Kumar Choubey held that the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely to disagree with a legally permissible view adopted by the Assessing Officer (AO) after due examination, allowing the foundation's appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23.
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1(4), Kolkata v. Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 1642/KOL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 302
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, has held that Assessing Officers can make additions for escaped income discovered during reassessment proceedings even if no addition is made on the issue that originally triggered the reopening. A Bench comprising Judicial Member George Mathan and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra held that the amended Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, permits Assessing Officers to assess escaped income relating to other issues discovered during reassessment.
Case Title : M/s. Pebblebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3319/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 303
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 October upheld an addition of Rs. 19.50 lakh as unexplained cash credit against Pebblebrook Ecoenergies Energy Pvt. Ltd. and dismissed three connected appeals involving Hills Garden Pvt. Ltd., Greenwood Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Avinash Plantations Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2016-17. A Bench comprising Accountant Member Inturi Rama Rao and Judicial Member Manu Kumar Giri held that an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be sustained in an unabated assessment year when seized material supports the addition and the taxpayer fails to explain the source of the cash credits.