SUPREME COURT
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).
Case Title : PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 VS. TATA REALTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
Case Number : DIARY NO. - 51036/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 322
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's plea challenging the Bombay High Court order dismissing its appeal against Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. The dispute concerned the applicability of Section 14A disallowance of the Income Tax Act where Tata Realty had earned no exempt income and whether the ₹2.5 crore payment made by Tata Realty to vacate the premises so that it could occupy them under a 60 month leave and licence arrangement was allowable as revenue expenditure.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
AO Must Decide Reassessment Objections Before Scrutiny Can Begin: Bombay High Court
Case Title : H. P. Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 14(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 3233 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 544
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an Assessing Officer cannot issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act to scrutinise a return in reassessment proceedings before deciding the assessee's objections to reopening the assessment. A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that issuing a Section 143(2) notice amounts to proceeding with the assessment. The Assessing Officer must therefore first dispose of the assessee's objections to reopening through a speaking order.
Calcutta HC
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 : 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.
Case Title : Neeraj Kukreja v. ITO
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1009/2024
The Delhi High Court has questioned the Income Tax Department over the issuance of two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) in the name of the same person and directed the Department to produce the original records relating to both PAN cards. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary was hearing a petition filed by Neeraj Kukreja, who claimed that he holds only one PAN and had neither applied for nor obtained the second PAN attributed to him.
Case Title : Sahara India Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9868/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1055
The Delhi High Court has allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by Sahara India group companies and directed that their pending income tax appeals be heard by the Delhi Bench of ITAT , even though the Assessing Officer (AO) having jurisdiction over the assessees was situated in Lucknow. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary noted that more than 100 appeals concerning the assessee's group companies were already being heard by the Delhi Bench and that both the assessees as well as the Revenue had jointly expressed their preference for the appeals to be heard in Delhi.
Case Title : Zoom Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1) & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13064/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1056
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Zoom Insurance Brokers challenging proceedings initiated under Sections 148A(3) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing that an identical challenge by the company for the preceding assessment year had already been rejected by a Coordinate Bench. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary noted that the facts of the present case were identical to those considered in Petitioner's earlier case, except for the assessment year.
Delhi High Court Quashes 2024 Reassessment Notice For AY 2010-11, Says It Is Beyond 10-Year Limit
Case Title : Shree Aggarsain North Ex Welfare Society v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-28, Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4168/2024
The Delhi High Court on 30 September held that proceedings under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated beyond the limitation period prescribed under Sections 153A and 153C, and quashed a notice issued for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary allowed a petition challenging the notice dated 15 February 2024, issued under Section 153C pursuant to a satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer on 7 February 2024. The judges observed that the “impugned notice is, thus, time-barred.”
Case Title : Preeti Chadha v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 62(1), Delhi & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 580/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1060
The Delhi High Court has quashed a notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, holding that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary allowed the writ petition filed by Preeti Chadha, challenging the notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Act pursuant to a satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer on June 16, 2022.
Gujarat HC
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.
Gujarat High Court Upholds ₹23.77 Crore Income Tax Relief For Adani Infrastructure Services
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. Adani Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 144 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 144
The Gujarat High Court has ruled in favour of Adani Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd., upholding the deletion of a ₹23.77 crore income tax disallowance. The court found that the company's interest income exceeded its interest expenditure and that the borrowed funds were advanced in a back-to-back transaction. The dispute concerned a disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Section 14A deals with expenditure incurred in relation to income that does not form part of an assessee's taxable income.
Karnataka HC
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.
ITAT
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).
Case Title : Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V. v. ACIT, Circle–International Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 1948/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 285
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 30 September held that commission earned for referring potential customers does not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12(5)(b) of the India-Netherlands DTAA where the referral activity does not involve making technical knowledge, skill or know-how available to the Indian entity. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra allowed Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V.'s appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23 against the treatment of Rs. 2.96 crore received from Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt. Ltd. as FTS.
Live Cricket Broadcasting Fees Not Royalty Under India-UK DTAA: Delhi ITAT
Case Title : England and Wales Cricket Board Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITITA 41/DEL/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 286
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench has held that fees received by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) for granting live broadcasting rights of cricket matches cannot be treated as royalty taxable in India under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The bench comprising Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Krinwant Sahay also held that a ₹6.26 crore release fee received by ECB from IPL franchises for allowing English players to participate in the tournament was not taxable in India under Article 18 of the DTAA. The appeal concerned Assessment Year 2023-24.
Case Title : ACIT, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai v. Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited
Case Number : ITA Nos. 7766/Mum/2026 & 7767/Mum/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 287
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that electricity rates actually paid by an assessee's cement manufacturing units to state power distribution companies can be used as internal comparable uncontrolled prices for benchmarking electricity supplied by its captive power plants. The dispute turned on whether the 2013 amendment bringing specified domestic transactions within the arm's-length pricing framework required captive power plants to be benchmarked against rates at which electricity generators supplied power to distribution companies. The tribunal held that it did not.
ITAT Mumbai Upholds Capital Gains Exemption After Two Adjacent Flats Amalgamated Into One
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1)(2), Mumbai v. Amit Mahendrakumar Mehta
Case Number : ITA No. 599/MUM/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 288
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Mumbai held that amalgamation of two adjacent flats into a single residential unit can qualify for capital gains exemption where the earlier flat loses its independent existence. A Bench of Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Girish Agrawal dismissed the appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1)(2), Mumbai against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and upheld the exemptions claimed by Amit Mahendrakumar Mehta under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.