LiveLawBiz Direct Tax Quarterly Digest: July - September, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
5 Oct 2026 1:53 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S ATLANTIC GLOBAL SHIPPING PVT. LTD.
Case Number : Diary No. 25162-2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in the Income Tax Department's appeal challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that held ST Shipping Pte Ltd, Singapore was entitled to the benefit of Article 8 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Under Article 8 of the DTAA, profits from the operation of ships in international traffic are taxable only in the country of residence. A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe while issuing notice on the Revenue's appeal said that it would assign a date for hearing the matter.
Case Title : PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 843/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a PIL seeking transfer of appellate jurisdiction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act) from the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). It, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his pending representation before the Union Government. At present, appeals under the PBPT Act are heard by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the PMLA. The tribunal exercises jurisdiction under multiple statutes, including the PBPT Act, and functions through a single bench in New Delhi.
Case Title : THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VS M/S STAR CRUISES (INDIA) P. LTD.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 3334-3336/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 259
The Supreme Court has recently ruled that hospitality and entertainment offered on board a cruise do not alter the essential nature of the activity as the carriage of passengers under the Income Tax Act. Ruling on the applicability of the presumptive taxation regime for non-resident shipping companies under Section 44B, the court observed that ancillary services provided during a voyage do not take the operation outside the scope of the provision. A bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria was hearing the revenue's challenge to the Bombay High Court's ruling extending the benefit of Section 44B to the foreign cruise operator Superstar Libra Ltd. (SLL).
Case Title : MERCHANT NAVY OFFICERS AND LADIES ASSOCIATION (MNOLA) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1059/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 285
The Supreme Court on 21 August directed the Union of India to sympathetically consider representations filed by Merchant Navy Officers and Ladies Association (MNOLA) seeking a 60-day tax exemption for Indian seafarers who remained in India for more than 182 days during the COVID-19 pandemic. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on merits and directed the Union to take an appropriate decision within four weeks.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi HC Ruling On GoDaddy Domain Fees Under India-US DTAA
Case Title : ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GODADDY.COM
Case Number : 45711/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order holding that payments received by GoDaddy.com LLC from Indian customers towards domain-name registration services are not chargeable to income tax in India under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli after hearing the parties, refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi HC Ruling On GoDaddy Domain Fees Under India-US DTAA
Case Title : ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GODADDY.COM
Case Number : 45711/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order holding that payments received by GoDaddy.com LLC from Indian customers towards domain-name registration services are not chargeable to income tax in India under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli after hearing the parties, refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order.
Case Title : THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 VERSUS SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.40944/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 288
The Supreme Court on 31 August dismissed the Income Tax Department's Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against the Delhi High Court's judgment in Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd's transfer pricing dispute, citing unexplained delays of 609 days and 457 days while keeping the questions of law open. A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the petitions on the ground of delay, finding no satisfactory explanation from the Revenue for the gross delays.
Assessing Officer Cannot Reopen Income Tax Settlement Through Reassessment: Supreme Court
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. M/s Omaxe Limited
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 9190 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 310
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that once a taxpayer's case has been finally settled by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen matters covered by the settlement through the ordinary reassessment route under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court said the Revenue can seek to reopen a settlement on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation by moving the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(6). The Assessing Officer, however, cannot independently reopen the settled assessment.
Case Title : Union Of India v Bharat Industrial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : SLP(C) No. 033196/2026
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment declaring Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unconstitutional. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stayed the High Court judgment until the final disposal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union Government challenging the ruling. “The impugned order shall remain stayed on the condition that assessment as well as reassessment proceedings shall not proceed further till final disposal of the main matter. Notify this appeal for the final hearing on 3rd December.”, the court ordered.
CBDT Circulars Reflect Executive's Understanding Of Law, Not Binding On Courts: Supreme Court
Case Title : Orient Crafts Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 143-144 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 311
The Supreme Court on Friday held that CBDT circulars merely represent the Executive's understanding of a statutory provision and are not binding on the High Courts or the Supreme Court. The observation came while the court rejected an assessee's reliance on a CBDT Office Memorandum to claim a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act on premium received from the sale of export quotas A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that such circulars merely reflect the Executive's understanding of a statutory provision and cannot bind courts while interpreting the Income Tax Act.
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).
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Justice Sandeep Jain v. Union of India & Ors.
A sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Sandeep Jain, has approached the High Court challenging the denial of exemption of statutory allowances from his total income under the new tax regime. The plea was taken up on Monday before a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, which called for instructions from the state on the petition. At the outset of the hearing, the bench asked the State's counsel whether there was any objection to it hearing the petition. After the state expressed no objection, the court called for instructions. It observed that the matter could not be heard ex-parte without calling for instructions. The court further observed that the interim relief sought was "in the nature of final relief."
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. Ankur Mittal
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 99 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 53
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the revenue has no right of appeal against an assessment order, as the assessment order is the stated case of the revenue itself. It held that where the revenue is aggrieved by an assessment order, its remedy is to seek revision where the assessment order is found to be "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue." The court held that in an assessment proceeding the Assessing Authority acts as a quasi-judicial authority, raising his own doubts in the interest of the revenue and deciding them on the replies of the assessee, so that the resulting order cannot be appealed against by the revenue.
Allahabad High Court Flags Loophole In Income Tax Law On Reassessment After Taxpayer's Death
Case Title : Smt. Asha Dubey v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Sectt. New Delhi and 2 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 571 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 54
While holding that a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be issued in the name of a dead assessee, the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow recently observed that the Act contains a legislative lacuna because it leaves the Revenue unable to initiate reassessment proceedings where an assessee dies before a valid reassessment notice is issued. Holding that the gap could result in escaped income going untaxed and prejudice the public exchequer, the court observed that the loophole ought to be plugged by Parliament. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice issued under Section 148 in the name of the deceased assessee, along with all consequential reassessment proceedings.
Case Title : Smt. Asha Dubey v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Sectt. New Delhi and 2 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 571 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 54
The Allahabad High Court on 23 July held that an order quashing a reassessment notice issued in the name of a deceased person as void ab initio cannot be treated as a “finding” or “direction” under Section 150(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated against Smt. Asha Dubey, holding that the Income Tax Department cannot rely on an order quashing a notice issued in the name of a deceased person to bypass the limitation period and issue a fresh notice to the legal representative.
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.”
Case Title : Siddhant Rastogi v. Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue And 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 949 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 65
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that objections to a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel as well as the Assessing Officer and that filing them before the Assessing Officer alone will not do. It held that where no objections are filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer may finalise the assessment on the basis of the draft order itself.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Income Tax Authorities Can Condon Delay Despite CBDT Time Limit: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s sri Vani Educational Society v. The Assistant Commissioner and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 3499/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 48
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that tax authorities cannot reject an application for condonation of delay merely because it was filed beyond the time limit prescribed by a CBDT circular. The court held that the authorities have discretion under the Income Tax Act to consider genuine hardship while deciding such applications. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar observed that Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act allows tax authorities to accept certain exemption, deduction, refund, or other claims even after the prescribed deadline where doing so would help avoid genuine hardship.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes ₹6.23 Lakh Tax Demand Over Expired DTVSV Payment Deadline
Case Title : N. Venu Gopal Reddy v. Union Of India and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 32115 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 51
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 24 August held that the Income Tax Department cannot require a Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (DTVSV) declarant to meet a payment deadline that had expired before the Department issued the revised payment certificate. A Division Bench comprising Justices Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar set aside a Rs. 6,23,708 demand raised against N. Venu Gopal Reddy, a works contractor, and directed the Income Tax authorities to issue the final order under the scheme.
Bombay HC
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Order Rejecting Naresh Goyal's Objections In Income Tax Reassessment
Case Title : Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai and Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3073 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 393
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside an order rejecting former Jet Airways chairman Naresh Goyal's objections to the reopening of his income tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-15. It directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the objections after taking into account Goyal's March 8, 2022 letter and the annexures explaining the source of funds used to acquire Jet Airways (India) Ltd. shares.
Bombay High Court Says ITAT Took 'Pedantic Approach', Condones 1,797-Day Delay in Income Tax Appeals
Case Title : Uttar Bhartiya Education Society v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) & Ors.
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal (L) Nos. 20375 of 2026 and 20379 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 395
The Bombay High Court has set aside an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order refusing to condone a 1,797-day delay in appeals filed by Uttar Bhartiya Education Society. Holding that the trust's explanation for the delay deserved due consideration, the court condoned the delay and restored the appeals for a decision on merits. A division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that the tribunal had adopted a "pedantic approach" while rejecting the charitable trust's plea for condonation of delay. It found that the trust had explained the reasons for the delay before both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT.
Case Title : Shreenath Finstock Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 3526 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 396
The Bombay High Court has held that an income tax reassessment notice dated and digitally signed on March 31, 2021, cannot be treated as having been issued on that date if it was actually dispatched through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal and reached the assessee only on April 1, 2021. The court ruled that the notice would be deemed to have been issued on April 1, 2021, and the reassessment proceedings must continue under the framework introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. The Tata Power Company Ltd.
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal no. 21 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 412
The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against The Tata Power Company Ltd. It held that income from trial runs of its broadband project and the sale of scrap generated before the project's installation were capital receipts not liable to tax. Observing that income generated before the commencement of business that is "inextricably connected with the setting up of a capital asset" is capital in nature and serves to reduce the cost of construction, the court held that the ITAT's order did not give rise to any substantial question of law.
Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Prosecution For Late ITR Filing As Taxpayer Entitled To Refund
Case Title : Rajesh Somandas Sachdev v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 5692 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 414
The Bombay High Court on 22 July held that criminal prosecution for failure to file an income tax return cannot continue when a subsequent assessment shows that the taxpayer had no tax liability and was instead entitled to a refund, as continuing such proceedings would serve no purpose where the Revenue suffered no loss. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar quashed the criminal complaint that the Income Tax Department filed against Rajesh Somandas Sachdev under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act (which penalises wilful failure to furnish an income tax return), holding that the Supreme Court's ruling in Guru Nanak Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer squarely covered the case.
Mere Delay In Paying Income Tax Does Not Amount To Wilful Tax Evasion: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Dinar Tarcar Resources (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. The Income Tax Department.
Case Number : Criminal Writ Petition No. 202 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 421
The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court has held that mere delay in paying an admitted tax liability, without a deliberate intention to evade payment, does not amount to a "wilful attempt" to evade tax. Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar observed that criminal prosecution requires proof of mens rea and cannot be invoked merely because there has been a delay or failure in paying tax. "The word 'wilful' introduces a mental element and requires looking into the mind of a person by gauging the person's actions indicative of one's state of mind. Thus, in order to prosecute a person under Section 276-C(2), the conduct of a person acquires importance. A person, in such a case, ought to have deliberately, intentionally and consciously made attempts to evade payment of tax, penalty or interest under the I.T. Act. It does not include an unintentional act, an accidental act or a casual act or genuine inability. The word 'wilful' used in the Section imports the concept of mens rea in the requirement of the Section. Therefore, on mere delay or mere failure without there being mens rea, the provisions of the Section cannot be invoked.", the court held.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-4 v. Aurum Ventures Private Limited
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 663 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 422
The Bombay High Court has dismissed two appeals filed by the Income Tax Department, upholding an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order that deleted additions made to a company's completed income tax assessments after finding they were not based on incriminating material recovered during a search. The court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. A division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe agreed with the tribunal that the Assessing Officer had based the additions on the company's regular books of account. The bench held that the tribunal's decision was consistent with the settled legal position on completed assessments after a search.
Bombay High Court Pulls Up ITAT Over Failure To Pronounce Reserved Judgments Within 90-Day Deadline
Case Title : Rajesh R. Hemrajani v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 10271 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 428
The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) over the repeated practice of releasing matters reserved for judgment without pronouncing orders. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed that Rule 34(5)(c) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, requires the tribunal to pronounce its judgment within 60 days of concluding the hearing and, in exceptional circumstances, within a further period of 30 days.
Co-Operative Banks Need Not Deduct TDS On Interest Paid To Co-Operative Societies: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Citizen Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Borivali) Vs The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Mumbai
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2533 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 438
The Bombay High Court has ruled that co-operative banks are not required to deduct Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on interest paid on fixed deposits held by another co-operative society, holding that the exemption for such payments continues to apply. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe interpreted Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, which exempts certain categories of interest payments from TDS. The dispute before the bench was whether the exemption available when one co-operative society pays interest to another continues to apply even where the payer is a cooperative bank.
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.
Taxpayer Cannot Be Denied TDS Credit For Deductor's Failure To Deposit Tax: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Manohar Ramabtar Jhunjhunwala v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2063 of 2025 and connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 473
The Bombay High Court on 5 August held that TDS credit cannot be denied to a taxpayer merely because the person who deducted the tax failed to deposit it with the Central Government, once actual deduction of tax from the income or payment is established. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the default of the deductor cannot prejudice the deducted and directed the Income Tax Department to verify claims and grant TDS credit where actual deduction is established.
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Against Royal Chains, Says 'Reason To Suspect' Not Enough
Case Title : Royal Chains P Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central 3(3) & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1714 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 478
The Bombay High Court on 24 August quashed an Income Tax reassessment notice issued to jewellery manufacturer Royal Chains Pvt Ltd for Assessment Year 2016-17. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Farhan P. Dubash noted that a completed Income Tax assessment cannot be reopened merely on the basis of suspicion about an investor's background, without material having a direct nexus with the particular transaction and the alleged escapement of income.
Case Title : Flyjac Logistics Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing-2(1)(1), Mumbai and Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2279 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 499
The Bombay High Court has ruled that notices issued by a Transfer Pricing Officer seeking information from a taxpayer cannot substitute the show cause notice required before determining the arm's length price. A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash observed, “Further the notice issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(2) of the Act seeking information from an Assessee cannot be said to be a Show Cause Notice issued as per the proviso to Section 92C(3) of the Act.”
Bombay High Court Says Income Tax Assessment Cannot Stand On Quashed Revision Order
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Mumbai v. The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal (L.) No. 20200 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 507
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an assessment order cannot survive when the revision order on which it was based has already been quashed by the income tax tribunal. Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded with the assessment after the tribunal had quashed the underlying Section 263 order. The court also rejected the Revenue's contention that the pending challenge against the tribunal's decision changed this position.
Case Title : Prayas Goel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2489 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 512
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an income tax assessment cannot be reopened where the record shows that an issue was examined during scrutiny and the assessee's claim was accepted, even if the original assessment order did not expressly discuss the issue. The bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash observed that “it is not necessary for an Assessing Officer to discuss each and every issue elaborately to disclose his satisfaction” when accepting an assessee's claim.
Bombay High Court Directs Department Not To Reassess Taxpayers Challenging Income Tax Act Sec. 147A
Case Title : Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4310 of 2024 [OS]
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 515
The Bombay High Court on 2 September directed the Income Tax Department not to proceed with reassessment proceedings against taxpayers who have challenged and pressed the constitutional validity of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including in petitions not presently listed with the main batch of cases. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Farhan P. Dubash passed the interim order in a batch of petitions led by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The judges extended the interim protection already granted in several petitions to other pending matters challenging Section 147A.
Bombay High Court Quashes Fresh Scrutiny Of Thomson Reuters Over Modified Return Filed After Merger
Case Title : Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 15691 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 519
The Bombay High Court on 8 September quashed the fresh scrutiny and transfer pricing proceedings initiated against Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited for Assessment Year 2022-23. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Farhan P. Dubash held that filing a modified return after a business reorganisation does not require a fresh assessment when proceedings for the same year are already pending. Under Section 170A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, the modified return must be considered as part of the pending assessment.
Case Title : GIA India Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2604 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 524
The Bombay High Court has held that imposing an income tax penalty on account of a reduction in an expenditure claim pursuant to a position settled under an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) is contrary to the scheme of the Income-tax Act and cannot be sustained. A division bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash observed that the APA framework, introduced to reduce tax litigation, would be rendered ineffective if consequential penalties could be imposed after an expenditure claim was reduced pursuant to a position settled under an APA.
Case Title : The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax–17, Mumbai v. Mile Stone Real Estate Fund
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 1209 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 525
The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) registered with SEBI does not need separate registration for each scheme it operates to claim exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act. A Division Bench comprising Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Milestone Real Estate Fund. The court upheld the Fund's eligibility for the exemption.
Bombay High Court Condones Trust's 30-Day Delay In Filing Tax Audit Form Despite Pending CBDT Plea
Case Title : Vallabh Welfare Foundation v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 24472 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 533
The Bombay High Court on 21 September condoned Vallabh Welfare Foundation's 30-day delay in filing Form 10B for Assessment Year 2020-21, despite the charitable trust having already approached the CBDT seeking condonation of the delay. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Farhan P. Dubash declined to relegate the Foundation to its pending application before the CBDT, finding that the peculiar facts warranted the High Court's intervention.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. Mahalaxmi Infra Projects Ltd.
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 2691 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 534
The Bombay High Court has cautioned the Income Tax Department against routinely challenging Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) orders by mechanically framing substantial questions of law. A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed, "we are constrained to observe here that this Bench has noticed that Appeals under Section 260A of the Act are filed by the Department in a routine manner whereby the suggested substantial questions of law(s) are drafted mechanically. In most of those appeals, legal objection and/or purported grounds of challenge to the orders of the Tribunal have been projected as substantial questions of law, based on which, a large number of Income Tax Appeals have been filed under Section 260A of the Act which are pending before this Court. Having regard to the legislative scheme of Section 260A, the remedy thereunder, cannot be permitted to become a routine or automatic continuation of the proceeding instituted before the learned Tribunal"
Case Title : RG Studios v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 869 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 535
The Bombay High Court on 22 September held that a taxpayer cannot be denied the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme merely because the department quantified its service tax liability in a communication addressed to the taxpayer's bank rather than directly to the taxpayer. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed RG Studios' petition challenging the rejection of its declaration under the Scheme, under which the firm had declared service tax dues of Rs. 44.28 lakh.
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.
Calcutta High Court Quashes Income-Tax Reassessment Against McNally Bharat After IBC Resolution Plan
Case Title : McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : WPO 546 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 224
The Calcutta High Court has quashed income-tax reassessment proceedings against McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, holding that the authorities failed to satisfy the statutory conditions for reopening the assessment and acted contrary to the company's NCLT-approved resolution plan. Justice Smita Das De allowed the company's writ petition and set aside the notice and order issued by the tax authorities along with all consequential proceedings. The authorities were also restrained from taking action contrary to the resolution plan.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata v. M/s Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 51 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 229
The Calcutta High Court has refused to condone a 1,480-day delay in filing an income tax appeal, holding that the Income Tax Department cannot explain such an inordinate delay merely by pointing to its heavy workload and the number of matters it was handling. A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Sudip Deb found that the Department had not shown due diligence in pursuing the appeal. The explanation offered for the delay was not sufficient to justify condoning it.
ATMs Are 'Computers' Under Income Tax Rules, Calcutta High Court Allows Higher Depreciation
Case Title : The Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V. v. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA 699 of 2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 230
The Calcutta High Court has held that Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) qualify as “computers” for claiming the higher depreciation rate under the Income Tax Rules, rejecting the Revenue's classification of the machines as general office equipment or machinery. “The revenue's attempt to categorise these units as general office equipment or machinery ignores the technical reality that they are specialised computing devices. Given that the technical specifications of an ATM align with the broad category of computers described in Appendix I, the appellant's claim for the higher depreciation rate is sustainable. This court finds that the functional parity between an ATM and a computer is sufficient to warrant its inclusion under the relevant rule for depreciation. We answer the substantial question (4) in the negative, i.e., against the revenue and in favor of the assessee,” the court ruled.
Different Evidence View By AO, CIT(A) No Ground To Interfere With ITAT Findings: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Kolkata v. Utkarsh Rai
Case Number : ITAT 174 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 231
On 22 September, the Calcutta High Court held that a different view of the evidence taken by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot, by itself, justify interference with factual findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Sudip Deb dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an ITAT Kolkata order granting relief to bullion trader Utkarsh Rai for Assessment Year 2020-21.
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.
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.
Case Title : Smt. Uma Kshatri v. Hari Ram Sahu & Ors.
Case Number : MAC No. 1431 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 24
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 20 August held that income tax need not be deducted while calculating motor accident compensation if the deceased's income falls within the Rs. 5 lakh limit eligible for rebate under Section 87A of the Income Tax Act. Courts & Judiciary Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decision not to deduct tax from the deceased's annual income of Rs. 4,34,970, including 50% towards future prospects, and dismissed his mother's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Quashes ₹21 Crore Block Assessment Over Failure To Issue Mandatory Scrutiny Notice
Case Title : Sun Aero Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA 527/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 697
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mandatory for completing block assessments under Section 158BC of the Act. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta relied on Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010), where the Supreme Court held that the omission to issue such notice is not a curable procedural irregularity.
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) 721
The Delhi High Court, by way of an interim direction, has allowed Supreme Court and High Court judges to file their income tax returns by showing prescribed judicial allowances as “receipts not in the nature of income”, even while opting for the new tax regime. The order came in a petition filed by the Delhi Tax Bar Association challenging a September 12, 2025, Office Memorandum issued by the CBDT, which, according to the petitioner, denied judges opting for the new tax regime the benefit of specified judicial allowances.
NFAC Must Provide Video Conferencing If Assessee Seeks Personal Hearing: Delhi High Court
Case Title : High Vista Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Vikram Electric Equipment Pvt. Ltd.) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4594/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 729
The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer who seeks a personal hearing during appellate proceedings before the NFAC is entitled to such a virtual hearing. “There are various issues which can be better explained with the help of personal or virtual assistance by assessee or its authorised representative. Mere written submissions or memo of appeal are not sufficient for proper adjudication,” division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed. The court thus set aside an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, passed without hearing the assessee despite requests.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax , Delhi-7 v. Rohde And Schwarz India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 575/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 742
The Delhi High Court has admitted the Income Tax Department's appeal to examine whether the statutory deadline for passing income tax assessment orders under Section 153 also governs final assessment orders passed under Section 144C, which lays down a separate assessment procedure for eligible assessees. Section 144C of the Act prescribes a special assessment procedure involving a draft assessment order, review by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and the passing of a final assessment order for certain eligible assessees.
Case Title : American Express Banking Corporation (India Branch) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA 367/2025, CM APPL. 54359/2025, CM APPL. 37792/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 750
The Delhi High Court has stayed the operation of a draft assessment order passed against American Express Banking Corporation (India Branch) while admitting the company's income tax appeal raising multiple questions of law relating to transfer pricing adjustments, including the validity of the Bright Line Test (BLT) and the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) methodology. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that by an interim order dated May 29, 2026, it had permitted the Assessing Officer to pass a draft assessment order while directing that it should not be given effect to.
Delhi High Court Admits Appeal On Taxability Of Demonetisation-Era Cash Deposits
Case Title : Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-20 v. Satish Kumar
Case Number : ITA 384/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 751
The Delhi High Court has admitted the Income Tax Department's appeal against an ITAT order deleting additions to income based on an assessee's cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta agreed to examine whether the Tribunal rightly deleted the addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, relating to cash deposits made during the demonetisation period, despite the Revenue's contention that the deposits were disproportionate to cash sales in the corresponding period of earlier years.
Case Title : Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA 551/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 753
The Delhi High Court has held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot enhance a tax disallowance without first issuing a statutory notice to the assessee, observing that failure to do so violates both Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the principles of natural justice. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus set aside the enhancement of a disallowance from ₹11.05 crore to ₹16.74 crore made against Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.
Case Title : The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Spicejet Limited
Case Number : ITA 539/2026 + ITA 540/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 754
The Delhi High Court has dismissed two appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against SpiceJet Ltd., holding that the tax treatment of premium payable on redemption of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCBs) is a settled issue. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the issue raised by the Revenue—whether the expenditure on FCCB redemption premium ought to be spread over the five-year life of the bonds instead of being claimed in the first year—stands concluded by earlier decisions of the Delhi High Court.
'Something Seriously Amiss': Delhi High Court Flags Delays In Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Refunds
Case Title : Yashita Finance Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9605/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 759
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (July 28) expressed concern over recurring delays by the Income Tax Department in processing refunds under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, observing that there was "something seriously amiss" in the system as assessees were routinely approaching the High Court for release of refunds. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to ascertain whether the Department's claim regarding the absence of a functional IT system was correct and, if so, ensure that necessary modules are put in place so that refunds are credited promptly, preferably within 90 days of issuance of Form No. 4.
Case Title : Clix Capital Services Private Limited As A Successor To Clix Finance India Private Limited v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4 2, New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10111/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 761
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (July 28) directed an Assessing Officer to personally explain the four-year delay in taking steps to release over ₹15 crore due to Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed the officer involved to personally appear before the Court and show cause why the interest payable for the delay should not be recovered from his salary.
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Red Bull Racing Limited (and batch)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8366/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 778
The Delhi High Court has framed an additional question for consideration in a batch of income tax petitions involving Formula One racing teams, including Red Bull Racing Limited and Atlassian Williams. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta would examine "Whether the Authority for Advance Ruling, which is enjoined upon to decide questions of law, as provided under Section 245N of the Income Tax Act of 1961, can decide as to whether an entity is having a permanent establishment in India, given that the fact about the existence of permanent establishment is a transaction based fact-finding exercise?"
Case Title : S.C.Sehgal v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4297/2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 781
The Delhi High Court has closed a 19-year-old writ petition challenging an order directing a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, holding that the proceedings had become infructuous since the audit had already been completed. Petitioner had challenged an order dated March 30, 2006, by which the assessing officer had directed a special audit. The writ petition was instituted in 2007, and notices were issued on May 30 that year, without any interim stay.
Delhi High Court Asks Income Tax Department To Explain 13-Year Delay In Releasing Seized Jewellery
Case Title : Shally Thapar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10592/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 790
The Delhi High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to file a “comprehensive affidavit” explaining the 13-year delay in releasing jewellery seized from an assessee. The Department informed the Court that the jewellery had now been released and assured that the balance refundable amount, along with applicable interest, would be paid within four weeks. However, the Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta sought to know from the Assessing Officer, the reasons for the delay not only from the date when he joined office (21.05.2025) but also for the period prior thereto.
Case Title : Aakash Goel v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Union Government and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on a public interest litigation seeking an automatic mechanism to refund Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) to individuals whose income falls below the taxable limit without requiring them to file income tax returns (ITRs). A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued notice on the petition filed by petitioner-in-person Aakash Goel and directed the respondents to file their reply. The matter will next be heard in October.
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.
Case Title : Aricent Technologies Holding Ltd. (Formerly Known As Flextronics Software System Ltd.) v. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA 1015/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 839
The Delhi High Court has held that the loss incurred by a unit eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act can be set off against the profits of other units of the assessee. Section 10B provides for deductions in respect of profits derived by eligible 100% export-oriented undertakings from the export of articles, things or computer software. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that although profits of each eligible unit are required to be separately calculated for determining the quantum of deduction under Section 10B, such computation does not alter the treatment of the unit's profit or loss for the purpose of computing the assessee's overall income.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. Vitasta Estates Pvt Ltd
Case Number : ITA 278/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 852
The Delhi High Court has held that a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be sustained if the notice issued to the assessee fails to specify the particular limb under which the penalty proceedings are proposed. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta rejected the Revenue's appeal against an ITAT order which had set aside the penalty imposed on Vitasta Estates.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, New Delhi v. M/s J D Exim Pvt Ltd
Case No.: ITA 669/2026
The Delhi High Court has held that an amount received as an advance towards the sale of property cannot be added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in a subsequent assessment year, merely because the assessee allegedly adopted a “device” to set off the capital gain arising from the sale against a capital loss. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was dealing with an appeal filed by the Revenue against an ITAT order concerning Assessment Year 2016-17.
Case Title : Vodafone Idea Limited Successor Of Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (Vmsl) Which Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) And Is Now Known As Vodafone Idea Limited Represented Through Its Authorized Representative Aditya Aggarwal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 78(1) New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2729/2026 and batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 873
The Delhi High Court on 18 August allowed three petitions filed by Vodafone Idea Limited challenging the Income Tax Department's refusal to release Rs. 53,09,56,470 in tax refunds on the ground of outstanding demands against its PAN and sister TANs, and directed the Department to pay the amount with applicable interest by 30 September 2026. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that an outstanding tax demand does not by itself permit the Department to withhold a refund unless it passes a valid order for adjustment or withholding under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 New Delhi v. M/S Ansal Phalak Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (Now Known As New Look Builders And Developers Pvt Ltd)
Case Number : ITA 770/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 878
The Delhi High Court on 21 August dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against Ansal Phalak Infrastructure Pvt Ltd and upheld the deletion of the Rs. 55 crore addition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta emphasised that an Assessing Officer must objectively consider the reply and documents furnished by a taxpayer and cannot brush them aside while making an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (which deals with unexplained cash credits).
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹3.65 Crore Advance Tax Credit Against Capital Gains Liability
Case Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Marguerite Lasusa Chawla
Case Number : ITA 521/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 882
The Delhi High Court on 21 August upheld an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order directing the Income Tax Department to allow Marguerite Lasusa Chawla, a taxpayer, credit of Rs. 3.65 crore advance tax paid in an earlier assessment year against her capital gains tax liability arising in a subsequent assessment year. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed: "Technically and legally, the advance tax…deposited and the return furnished by the respondent pertains to the very same transaction and very same gain,"
Case Title : M/S Civitech Housing India (P) Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Subodh Goel v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 4(2) Delhi & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1077/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 883
The Delhi High Court on 21 August questioned the Income Tax Department's decision to withhold the entire refund of Rs.71.71 lakh payable to Civitech Housing India against an outstanding demand of only Rs.1.25 lakh. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it failed to comprehend why such a “meagre” demand warranted withholding the entire refund. It observed: “We fail to comprehend that while would the respondents withheld the entire refund of Rs.71,71,049/- for a meagre demand of Rs.1,25,389/- which has been calculated way back on 21.07.2026.”
Delhi Registered Office Doesn't Confer Jurisdiction Over UP Tax Audit Dispute: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Dhanesh Gupta & Co., Chartered Accountants v. UoI & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 610/201
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 889
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that merely because the registered office of a company whose accounts were audited is situated in Delhi, it does not mean that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dismissed a petition filed by a Chartered Accountants firm challenging a dispute concerning its fee bill and interest arising from its appointment as a Special Auditor.
Can ITAT Direct Amortisation Of Royalty Payment Beyond AO's Findings? Delhi High Court To Decide
Case Title : Aalap Digital Music Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA 385/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 895
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) could direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct a de novo assessment and amortise a music licence fee when the direction went beyond the case originally set up by the AO. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta admitted an appeal filed by Aalap Digital Music Private Limited against an ITAT order concerning Assessment Year 2016-17.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Black Money Act Prosecution Over Belated Retrospectivity Challenge
Case Title : Samir Thapar v. Principal Director Of Income Tax (Inv.), 1, Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12028/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 896
The Delhi High Court on 20 August refused to stay prosecution under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, observing that the Petitioner should have challenged the retrospective operation of its provisions when proceedings concerning the foreign assets first began. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta heard a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 50, 51 and 72(c) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Rejects ₹50.56 Crore Reassessment Additions For Want Of New Material
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7, Delhi v. Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 441/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 897
The Delhi High Court on 19 August held that the Revenue cannot revisit tax issues already considered while framing an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in reassessment proceedings unless new information or material comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dismissing the Revenue's appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleting two additions made during reassessment proceedings, one of Rs. 8,48,89,345 and the other of Rs. 42.08 crore.
Delhi High Court Refuses Stay On ITAT Order Directing Release Of ₹17.66 Crore Seized Cash
Case Title : The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Kapoor Industries Limited
Case Number : ITA 671/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 898
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot retain cash seized during a search once the assessment of the searched person is completed and the charge over the cash under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 comes to an end. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while refusing to stay an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order concerning Rs. 17.66 crore seized from lockers of searched persons Shakun Tamang and Ashish Kapoor.
Income Tax Act Section 245W Appeal Must Be Filed By AO Not PCIT: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Goldera International Ltd
Case Number : ITA 47/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 899
The Delhi High Court on 19 August clarified that an appeal under Section 245W(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be filed by the Assessing Officer (AO), and not by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). Section 245W provides for appeals to the High Court against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in cases covered by the provision. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the PCIT against Goldera International.
Case Title : Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 New Delhi v. NTPC Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 89/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 946
The Delhi High Court has rejected the Income Tax Department's appeal challenging the annulment of reassessment proceedings against NTPC Limited, holding that the subsequent Assessing Officer (AO) had initiated the proceedings merely because he disagreed with the view taken by his predecessor. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the reassessment was a "classic case of change of opinion", particularly since the issues forming the basis of reassessment had already been examined during the original scrutiny assessment.
Tax Paid Twice On Same Income Is 'Unjust Enrichment' By Government: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sojitz Asia Pte. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax), New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7495/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 950
The Delhi High Court has held that refusal to allow an assessee to correct an inadvertent double taxation of the same income would amount to “unjust enrichment” on the part of the Union of India. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta added that the Government can charge tax only once on a particular income. The Court made the observation while allowing a petition where Petitioner had inadvertently offered the same interest income of ₹7,58,90,455 to tax in two assessment years.
Case Title : J J Foods Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 13 (1) Delhi &Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7705/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 956
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) curtailed the assessee's statutory opportunity to respond and subsequently ignored the reply that had been filed before the order was passed. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the assessee was entitled to 30 days to file its reply, whereas the AO had practically reduced the time available to it to around 15 days.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside 7 ITAT Orders In Patanjali Ayurved Tax Appeals Over Procedural Lapses
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited
Case Number : ITA 80/2026&CM APPL. 6824/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 958
The Delhi High Court on 10 September set aside seven orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in tax appeals involving Patanjali Ayurved Limited, citing procedural lapses, non-application of mind and undue haste in passing a common order in seven appeals. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta set aside the orders after the Income Tax Department challenged four of them, noting that the seven appeals had been heard and pronounced on different dates but were disposed of through a common order.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Delhi v. Smt. Saloni Narang
Case Number : ITA 437/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 964
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against an ITAT order quashing a search assessment for AY 2006-07 on the ground of limitation, in light of its earlier judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi v. Sanjay Jain which held time limit for completing search assessments cannot be extended merely by making a reference to a foreign tax authority if the information sought is not permissible under the applicable tax treaty.
Mere Payment By Indian Resident To Non-Resident Not Income Accruing In India: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Teva Pharmaceuticals Usa Inc. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10711/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 968
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a payment is made by an Indian resident to a non-resident, the payment cannot by itself be treated as income accruing or arising in India. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar made the observation while allowing a batch of petitions concerning the taxability of payments made by Ranbaxy Laboratories to Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Israel and the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA.
Case Title : Elsevier BV v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12114/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 982
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot invoke reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely to make up for his own failure to record a finding on the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, after having conducted an inquiry into the issue during the original assessment. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Elsevier BV, a company incorporated and tax resident in the Netherlands, challenging reassessment proceedings initiated against it for Assessment Year 2016-17.
Case Title : Shri Krishna Industries Through It Proprietor Prop Mohan Lal v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4897/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 983
The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) can co-exist where they concern distinct liabilities or contraventions. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a plea filed challenging proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities under Section 74 of the CGST Act in relation to alleged inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by Petitioner.
Delhi High Court Stays Income Tax Reassessment Against GoDaddy Over 'Over-Zealous' Approach Of AO
Case Title : GoDaddy.com LLC v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3), International Taxation, New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13368/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 987
The Delhi High Court has stayed income reassessment proceedings initiated against domain registrar GoDaddy.com LLC, observing that the Assessing Officer (AO) was proceeding with an “over-zealous approach” and appeared to be guided by revenue considerations. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the AO had “ignored objectivity and basic tenet of tax adjudication system, being certainty and finality of the assessment proceedings.”
Case Title : Garima Vikas v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5278/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 988
The Delhi High Court has held that where a search was conducted between April 1, 2021 and September 1, 2024, the reassessment provisions under Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they stood before the Finance Act, 2024 amendment, would continue to apply. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta accordingly upheld the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act without first following the procedure under Section 148A(b), (c) and (d).
Delhi High Court Upholds Delhivery's ₹51.48 Crore Deduction For ESOP Expenditure
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Delhivery Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 479/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 989
The Delhi High Court has upheld Delhivery Pvt. Ltd.'s claim for deduction of ₹51.48 crore in ESOP expenditure, ruling that the Assessing Officer was also not justified in rejecting a Chartered Accountant's valuation report for an assessment year when such certification was permissible The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dismissed the Revenue's appeal in its entirety and answered both questions raised before it in favour of the assessee.
Case Title : A.T. Kearney Limited – India Branch Office v. Union of India & Anr. (and batch)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5178/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 990
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to file an affidavit disclosing the pendency of cases before the Boards for Advance Rulings and their benches, while also seeking details regarding the status of Chief Commissioners nominated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) as members of the Boards. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta passed the direction while hearing a batch of petitions, including those filed by Mitsubishi Electric and the Regents of the University of Michigan.
Case Title : Raj Sheela Growth Fund Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer Ward 21 (1) Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13737/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1001
The Delhi High Court has declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction in a challenge concerning the jurisdiction of an Income Tax Officer to pass an assessment order, noting that the assessee had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order and the appeal had been pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) since January 2020. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, however, requested CIT(A) to decide the pending appeal within two months.
Case Title : Shantijanak Estates Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi &Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12741/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1005
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot require an assessee to furnish “negative evidence” to establish that no appeal has been filed against an assessment order while considering an application for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while setting aside an order passed by the AO rejecting an application filed by Petitioner seeking immunity from penalty proceedings.
Case Title : Mastercard Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10944/2018
The Delhi High Court on Friday orally observed that treating a network or towers as a permanent establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise could be a “very dangerous proposition," warning that such an approach could be misused across jurisdictions. “AAR's view that towers and network itself constitute a PE is a very dangerous proposition ... it can be misused anywhere,” a Division Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary observed while hearing afresh Mastercard Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.'s challenge to a 2018 ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) at Delhi.
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.
Gauhati HC
Case Title : Biswajit Deb v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 1929 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 23
The Gauhati High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated under Income Tax Act, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment without first verifying the petitioner's transactions. Referring to the AO's own recorded reasons that beneficiary-wise transactions could not be identified "due to paucity of time", Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair held, "The recording of reason by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 5 of being unable to carry out investigation for identifying the transactions for each of the beneficiaries involved, due to paucity of time, would go to reveal that the notices were being issued only to carry out such verification. This court also holds that such reopening of assessment would not be permitted for a fishing or roving enquiry."
Income Tax Prosecution Cannot Survive Once Assessment Is Set Aside On Merits: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : M/s Flamingo Breweries Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Others v. Income Tax Department
Case Number : Crl.Pet. No. 896/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 31
The Gauhati High Court on 2 September held that an income tax prosecution cannot continue when the assessment on which it is based has been set aside on merits, and that separate complaints against company directors for the same alleged offence are not maintainable when the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused. Justice Robin Phukan allowed three petitions filed by Flamingo Breweries Private Limited and its two directors and quashed the criminal complaints pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Bipinkumar Girdharlal Parekh v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 15105 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)82
The Gujarat High Court has held that the earlier reassessment regime can apply even where the assessee was not the person searched, provided the reassessment is founded on incriminating material recovered during a search conducted within the statutory transition period. Applying that principle, the court quashed reassessment proceedings against a transporter after holding that the reopening notice had been issued beyond the applicable limitation period.
Case Title : Jitendra Shankarlal Mistri v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 7485 of 2026 (with connected matters)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)87
The Gujarat High Court on 29 June held that a reassessment notice cannot be challenged through a writ petition after reassessment proceedings have culminated in an assessment order. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petitions filed by Jitendra Shankarlal Mistri and others, holding that the petitioners could avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the reassessment orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Over Pre-2012 Property Valuation Rule
Case Title : Late Padmaben Zinabhai Trivedi v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 19363 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)88
The Gujarat High Court has quashed an income tax reassessment notice issued over the valuation of land sold in 2009. It held that the reassessment in the case was unsustainable because the assessing officer sought to adopt a lower fair market value despite the unamended law governing the assessment. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that the amendment made to Section 55A through the Finance Act, 2012 applied only prospectively. It therefore could not govern Assessment Year 2010-11.
Case Title : Vimal Oil and Foods Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Gandhinagar
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 13194 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)93
The Gujarat High Court on 30 June quashed reassessment proceedings against Vimal Oil and Foods Ltd., holding that the Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment of a company sold as a going concern under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on mere assumptions without verifying whether any income had actually escaped assessment. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the batch of writ petitions filed by the company and quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2019-20.
Case Title : Virendra Naginbhai Patel (HUF) v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(5)
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 20401 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)94
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that an Assessing Officer is not deemed to have noticed facts disclosed in a wealth tax return while examining an income tax return. It refused to interfere with reassessment proceedings initiated against a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) over an unexplained cash payment of more than ₹1.02 crore towards the purchase of immovable property. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by Virendra Naginbhai Patel (HUF), which challenged the reassessment notice issued for Assessment Year 2012-13.
Case Title : Datta Projects Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 21134 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)96
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated under the Income Tax Act, holding that a completed assessment cannot be reopened merely on the presumption that an assessee collected unaccounted cash ("on-money") from buyers over and above the recorded sale price because its sister concern was found to have done so. The court held that the reopening against Datta Projects was based entirely on presumptions and surmises, without any material linking the assessee to undisclosed income. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the writ petition filed by Datta Projects Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2012-13.
Case Title : Late Padmaben Zinabhai Trivedi v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 19363 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)97
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the 2012 amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Income Tax Act, which expanded the Assessing Officer's power to refer capital assets for valuation, cannot be applied retrospectively. The court ruled that assessments relating to the period prior to 1 July 2012 would continue to be governed by the unamended provision and, on that basis, quashed a reassessment notice issued to the assessee. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by the legal heir of late Padmaben Zinabhai Trivedi, who had challenged a notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2010-11.
Gujarat High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Issued Beyond COVID-Era TOLA Deadline
Case Title : Wealth First Portfolio Managers Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 23218 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 101
The Gujarat High Court has quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, holding that it was issued beyond the "surviving time" available under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. TOLA was enacted to extend statutory timelines for tax and other legal proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Three Days To Reply To Income Tax SCN Not Reasonable: Gujarat High Court Quashes Assessment
Case Title : SN Advance Ventures Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Assessment Unit & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 6284 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 102
The Gujarat High Court recently held that granting a taxpayer only three days to respond to an income tax show cause notice does not amount to a reasonable opportunity of hearing and violates the principles of natural justice. Setting aside an income tax assessment order passed after scrutiny proceedings, a Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed, "Thus, in view of the settled legal position, granting only three days' time to file a reply cannot be said to be a reasonable opportunity. The Assessing Officer ought to have considered and decided the petitioner's grievance dated 16.03.2026, wherein objection was raised regarding the inadequate time granted for filing the reply."
Case Title : Institute of Fire Safety Disaster Management Studies v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 6872 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 103
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a public trust cannot be treated as a "concern" under the deemed dividend provisions of the Income Tax Act (Section 2(22)(e)) merely because its trustee holds substantial shares in the lending company. Holding that the legal fiction created by the provision cannot be stretched to cover such trusts, the court observed, "The word "concern" used under the Act in such Explanation, which encompasses a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), or a firm, or an association of persons or a body of individuals or a company cannot be extended to public Trust and they cannot be classified as a "concern" for the purpose of specific tax fiction. Thus, even if a loan is extended to a public Trust by a Private Limited Company, that usually cannot be treated as a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act."
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad v. Bhavnagar Mandap Contractors Association
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 467 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 104
The Gujarat High court has recently upheld an Income Tax Appellate tribunal order directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to reconsider a trade association's application for registration as a charitable institution. It held that trade promotion bodies established to advance trade and commerce can qualify as charitable institutions under the "general public utility" category of the Income Tax Act. A division bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi said the Bhavnagar Mandap Contractors Association's objects were aimed at advancing trade and business for its members as well as the public at large.
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".
Gujarat High Court Quashes Reassessment Against Adani Exports For AY 2010-11
Case Title : Adani Exports v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2)
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 3597 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 116
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings against Adani Exports for AY 2010-11. It found that the Assessing Officer had relied on an unamended partnership deed while reopening the assessment, despite the assessee having specifically informed him that the deed had been amended to remove the obligation to pay interest on partners' capital. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that the amended partnership deed expressly provided that no interest would be payable on the partners' capital.
Case Title : Loonchand Dhanraj HUF v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(3)
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 18101 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 118
The Gujarat High Court on 19 August held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot reopen an assessment on an issue already specifically examined during the original scrutiny merely on a change of opinion, unless fresh tangible material shows that income had escaped assessment because of suppression of material facts. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed a writ petition filed by Loonchand Dhanraj HUF and quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated through a notice dated 29 March 2019 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, along with the subsequent order rejecting its objections.
Gujarat High Court Grants ₹1 Crore Tax Refund To Charitable Trust After Exemption Was Omitted
Case Title : Sheth Shree Karshandas Halu Dharamshala Jamnagar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 15686 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 120
The Gujarat High Court on 25 August quashed the rejection of the revision application filed by Sheth Shree Karshandas Halu Dharamshala Jamnagar and held that the public charitable trust was entitled to exemption under Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that a bona fide omission to claim a statutory tax benefit in the original return can be corrected through revisional proceedings under Section 264 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Quashes DVO Reference Made A Day Before Assessment Became Time-Barred
Case Title : Slimtile Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 13575 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 123
The Gujarat High Court has quashed an Assessing Officer's reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) made just a day before the assessment was due to become time-barred. The court held that the reference was a colourable exercise aimed at extending the time available to complete the assessment. A bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati found that the material relating to the company's assets and payments was already available with the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) v. Income Tax Officer, TDS Circle, TDS, Vadodara & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 6494 of 2026 with allied petitions
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 125
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the tax department cannot rely on the three-month time limit for passing a consequential order under the Income-tax Act to justify delaying refunds under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. It held that the department was required to pass the necessary order and issue the refund by July 31, 2021, as prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), and directed it to pay interest at 6% per annum on the delayed refund from August 1, 2021 to March 2, 2024.
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. M/s J K Paper Limited
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 290 of 2010 with R/Tax Appeal No. 900 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 132
The Gujarat High Court has upheld an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal finding that expenditure incurred by J K Paper Limited on supervising trees grown by farmers could not be treated as agricultural expenditure. The tribunal had also excluded expenditure on producing coppice shoots through a process that did not involve primary operations on land. A bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi upheld the tribunal's decision to restrict the disallowance of agricultural loss to ₹9.43 lakh, against the ₹78.12 lakh addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Ahmedabad v. Expert Particle Board
Case Number : Tax Appeal Nos.436 & 437 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 133
The Gujarat High Court on 8 September held that diary entries or other material found during survey proceedings cannot, by themselves, justify additions in the hands of a partnership firm when the material was not recovered from the firm's premises and there is no independent evidence linking the transactions recorded in it to the firm. A Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Revenue's appeals against Expert Particle Board and its partner, upholding the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT Rajkot. It also upheld the deletion of a Rs. 54.04 lakh purchase disallowance, finding that the alleged purchases had never been claimed as a deduction in the books or the return.
Gujarat High Court Holds Company Entitled To Interest On ₹2.50 Crore TDS Refund
Case Title : Maharashtra Border Check Post Network Ltd. v. C.B.D.T. & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 21110 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 134
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that Maharashtra Border Check Post Network Ltd. is entitled to interest on a ₹2.50 crore refund arising from a TDS demand that was later set aside. The court held that the company's claim was covered by Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act and could not be denied by relying on Section 244A(1B), which came into effect from April 1, 2017. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed that Section 244A(1)(b) already provided for interest on refunds in cases falling outside the specific categories covered by Section 244A(1)(a).
Case Title : Lodestone Software Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 5025 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 135
The Gujarat High Court on 17 September held that an assessment cannot be reopened merely on the basis of an audit objection when the underlying issue was examined during the original scrutiny and no fresh or tangible material indicates escapement of income. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati quashed the Section 148A(3) order and consequential Section 148 notice issued to Lodestone Software Services Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2022-23, finding that the reopening was based on a misreading of the audit report.
Case Title : Dilavarsinh Harisinh Zala v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ahmedabad & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 8681 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 138
The Gujarat High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the question of whether seized assets must be mandatorily released upon completion of 120 days under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, where an application for release is filed within 30 days. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati referred three questions concerning the interpretation of the First and Second Provisos to Section 132B(1)(i).
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.
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.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Section 269SS Income Tax Act Breach Does Not Bar Section 138 NI Act Case: J&K High Court
Case Title : Manzoor Ahmad Khan v. Javaid Ahmad Malik
Case Number : CRM(M) No. 392/2024 c/w CRM(M) No. 219/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 27
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on 18 August held that violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act does not render a transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), and attracts only the penalty prescribed under the Income Tax Act. Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act restricts the acceptance of certain loans, deposits and specified sums in cash. A Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed two petitions filed by Manzoor Ahmad Khan under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act arising from dishonour of ten cheques issued in connection with a Rs. 45.50 lakh land transaction.
Jharkhand HC
Jharkhand High Court Upholds Conviction For False Income Tax Refund Claim Based On Forged Documents
Case Title : Sashi Bhusan Prasad Bhuian @ Shashi Bhusan Prasad Bhuia v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Case Number : Criminal Revision No. 5 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JHAR) 13
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of an Eastern Coalfields Limited employee for claiming an income tax refund of ₹35,875 on the basis of forged documents. The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava dismissed the criminal revision filed by Sashi Bhusan Prasad Bhuian. The court directed him to surrender before the trial court within two months to undergo the remaining sentence. The court observed, "From the impugned judgment, it is crystal clear that present petitioner has claimed on the basis of forged document, a refund of Rs. 35,875/- for which no valid explanation or reasons has been furnished by him."
Karnataka HC
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Unisys India Pvt. Ltd. c/w Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. H.K. Suresh
Case Number : ITA No. 55 of 2024 c/w ITA No. 216 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 117
The Karnataka High Court has held that an income tax order initially communicated without a Document Identification Number (DIN) does not become invalid merely because the DIN is communicated later through a separate authenticated intimation letter. The court held that the procedure substantially complied with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 as it maintained the audit trail and authenticity of departmental communications. A Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind allowed two appeals filed by the Revenue against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru.
Karnataka High Court Holds S. 271DA Penalty Begins Only With S. 274 Notice, Reads In Six Month Limit
Case Title : Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Ganesh Agarwal & Connected Matters
Case Number : WA No. 1991 of 2025 c/w WA Nos. 1977, 1980, 1982, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2003, 2021 & 2023 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 118
The Karnataka High Court on 7 July held that penalty proceedings under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act commence only when the Joint Commissioner issues a show cause notice under Section 274, and not when the Assessing Officer merely forwards a proposal for initiating penalty. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind partly allowed a batch of ten Revenue appeals, clarifying that, although the Act does not prescribe a time limit for issuing a notice under Section 274, the Joint Commissioner must issue it within six months from the end of the month in which the proposal is received from the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 122
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the deletion of a ₹21.11 crore tax addition made against a Bengaluru-based businessman engaged in identifying and procuring land for real estate projects. The court held that advances received in the course of that business cannot be taxed merely because they remained outstanding for several years. The court observed that the mere passage of time does not amount to forfeiture, and such advances cannot be treated as taxable income in the absence of material showing that the recipient had become absolutely entitled to retain the money.
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.
TPO Cannot Reject Comparables Merely To Adopt Department's Preferred Set: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : SAP Labs India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer & Connected Matters
Case Number : ITA No.10 of 2011 & Connected Appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 156
The Karnataka High Court on 28 August held that a Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot reject comparable companies selected by a taxpayer merely to replace them with a standard set of comparables preferred by the Income Tax Department, holding that the selection or exclusion of comparables must satisfy the requirements under the Income Tax Act and Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind allowed the batch of transfer pricing appeals, including one by SAP Labs India Private Limited, and noted that the TPO must justify the selection or exclusion of comparable companies based on the statutory requirements.
Case Title : Anurag Kalia v. Union of India
Case Number : WP 28761 of 2025
The Centre on Saturday told the Karnataka High Court that interpreting “spouse” to include same-sex partners under a provision of the Income Tax Act would indirectly recognise a same-sex matrimonial relationship, which is not recognised under Indian law. “Same-sex marriage is not a recognised marriage in the Indian context. So, if we understand spouse to mean same sex people, we indirectly recognise their matrimonial relationship. Therefore, spouse necessarily means husband and wife,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Revision Proceedings Over ESOP Tax Treatment After ₹27.13 Cr. Refund
Case Title : Shri Mukesh Bansal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2026 (T-IT)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 167
On 18 September, the Karnataka High Court set aside revision proceedings initiated against taxpayer Mukesh Bansal after his revised income tax return for the assessment year 2019-20 resulted in a refund of Rs. 27.13 crore. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav held that an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, without any adjustment, cannot be treated as an “order” for exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Act.
Case Title : Mukesh Bansal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2026 (T-IT)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 167
The Karnataka High Court has set aside income tax revision proceedings initiated against entrepreneur and Myntra and Cult. fit co-founder Mukesh Bansal in connection with a refund of over ₹27.13 crore for AY 2019-20. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav held that an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, without any adjustment, could not be treated as an order for exercising revisionary powers under Section 263.
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.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Regional Sports Centre's Building Tax Exemption Claim
Case Title : Regional Sports Centre v. The State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 3192 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 172
The Kerala High Court on 18 August set aside the Kerala Government's rejection of the Regional Sports Centre, Kochi's claim for exemption from building tax and directed it to reconsider the claim afresh. Justice Harisankar V. Menon passed the order after finding that the Government had failed to properly consider material showing that the Centre provided free sports coaching to several students and trainees. He held: "The Government to reconsider the claim for exemption raised by the petitioner afresh with specific reference to the observations made as above."
Kerala High Court Sets Aside Income Tax Assessment Treating PG Student's Stipend As Salary
Case Title : Nahas Kakkattummal v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : WA NO. 1543 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 177
The Kerala High Court on 17 August set aside an income tax assessment order treating the stipend received by a postgraduate medical student as salary, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider his claim that stipend paid to a student is exempt from income tax. A Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji allowed the appeal filed by Nahas Kakkattummal and set aside both the Single Judge's judgment and the assessment order, directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter after giving the student an opportunity to produce relevant documents.
Kerala High Court Quashes Order Dismissing Actor Jayasurya's Income Tax Appeal Over Non-Appearance
Case Title : Jayan Vatahakkattu Moni v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 14421 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 183
The Kerala High Court has quashed an order dismissing Malayalam actor Jayasurya's (Jayan Vathakkattu Moni) income tax appeal solely because he failed to appear for the hearing despite notices being issued on four occasions. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that an appellant's non-appearance cannot, by itself, be a ground to dismiss an appeal without considering the grounds raised in it.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Holds Employer Cannot Grant Section 89 Tax Relief Without Form 10E From Employees
Case Title : Hosur Bata Employees Union v. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.No.4601 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 169
The Madras High Court on 24 June held that employers deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on voluntary retirement compensation cannot be faulted for not granting relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act (relief for salary received in arrears or advance) unless employees submit the prescribed Form 10E. Justice C. Saravanan allowed the writ petition filed by the Hosur Bata Employees Union in part and directed the Income Tax Department to process the income tax returns of affected employees and refund any eligible TDS amount, while holding that Bata India Ltd. had acted in accordance with its statutory obligation to deduct tax.
Case Title : Nate Nandha v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.Nos.11340/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 170
The Madras High Court has held that Jurisdictional Assessing Officers have the authority to issue reassessment notices under Sections 148A, 148 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing that the retrospective insertion of Section 147A has clarified their jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for income escaping assessment. Justice C. Saravanan dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging reassessment proceedings initiated by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, holding that the petitioners had only questioned the officers' jurisdiction and had not challenged the constitutional validity of Section 147A, which could be examined only by a Division Bench.
Madras High Court Quashes Reassessment Based On Material Already Examined During Original Assessment
Case Title : M/s.Schwing Stetter (India) Private Limited v. Additional /Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer
Case Number : WP No. 6230 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 171
The Madras High Court has recently set aside reassessment proceedings initiated against an engineering equipment manufacturer after finding that the Income Tax Department reopened the assessment based on material that had already been disclosed and examined during the original assessment. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the reassessment amounted to an impermissible change of opinion.
Madras High Court Grants Stay On ₹101.14 Crore TDS Penalty Recovery Against Cognizant
Case Title : Cognizant Technology Solutions v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WP Nos.25670/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 178
The Madras High Court on 6 July granted interim relief to Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited by staying recovery proceedings arising from tax deducted at source (TDS) penalty demands exceeding Rs. 101.14 crore. A Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy found that the company had established a prima facie case, directed it to deposit Rs. 4 crore within two months, and stayed recovery of the balance penalty amount until the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decides the pending appeals and for two weeks thereafter.
Madras High Court Quashes ₹13.48 Cr Misreporting Penalty On Ennore Tank Terminals For Vague Notice
Case Title : M/s. Ennore Tank Terminals Private Limited v. The Additional /Joint /Deputy / Assistant
Case Number : WP No. 10711 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 206
The Madras High Court on 20 July set aside a penalty of over Rs. 13.48 crore imposed on Ennore Tank Terminals Private Limited, holding that the Income Tax Department cannot penalise a taxpayer for alleged misreporting of income unless it clearly informs the taxpayer of the basis for such allegation in the show cause notice. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that proceedings for misreporting of income carry serious consequences, including a penalty of 200% of the tax payable on under-reported income and denial of statutory immunity.
Madras High Court Quashes Reassessment Against Stock Broker Over Misreading Client Funds As Income
Case Title : The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Aryan Share And Stock Brokers Ltd
Case Number : TCA No.127 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 217
The Madras High Court on 31 July held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on the basis of suspicion arising from a misunderstanding of a stock broker's business model, ruling that client funds received by a broker in a fiduciary capacity cannot be treated as the broker's own income without tangible material. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order quashing reassessment proceedings against Aryan Share and Stock Brokers Ltd., holding that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision.
Case Title : M/s. Grace Infrastructure Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.No.18451 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 220
The Madras High Court on 20 July held that tax authorities must consider the impact of a court-approved demerger before revising an assessment and set aside a revision order passed without examining the effect of the restructuring on Grace Infrastructure Private Limited's financial statements. Justice C. Saravanan remitted the matter to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh adjudication, directing it to reconsider the assessment after allowing the company to file a revised return based on its post-demerger audited financial statements.
Madras High Court Quashes Geeco Enercon Reassessment, Says New Regime Cannot Revive Limitation
Case Title : Geeco Enercon Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.(MD) No.30962 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 238
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under the new reassessment regime after the limitation period under the old regime has expired, and quashed the reassessment proceedings against Geeco Enercon Private Limited for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. Justice C. Saravanan held that the proceedings the Income Tax Department initiated in August 2024 were barred by limitation and quashed the order dated 31 August 2024 and the consequential reopening notice.
Interest On Trust's FDs Taxable Without Specific Donor Direction For Corpus: Madras High Court
Case Title : St. Joseph's Development Trust v. The Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward
Case Number : T.C.A.No.124 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 245
The Madras High Court on 17 August held that interest earned on fixed deposits maintained by a Trust is taxable revenue receipt where donors have not specifically directed that such interest form part of the Trust's corpus. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed an appeal filed by St. Joseph's Development Trust, upholding the addition of Rs. 94.66 lakh as taxable interest income for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Case Title : The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai v. Sohanraj Uttamchand
Case Number : T.C.A.Nos. 714 and 721 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 257
The Madras High Court on 28 August upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's orders deleting tax additions of Rs. 32.90 crore and Rs. 38.05 crore in cases concerning Long Term Capital Gains claimed from the sale of shares in PFL Infotech Limited and Risa International Limited. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the connected appeals concerning penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income).
Individual Notice To Partners Not Needed For Firm's Tax Recovery: Madras High Court
Case Title : S Venkataramanan v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4
Case Number : WP Nos. 2711 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 259
The Madras High Court on 24 August held that individual notice to partners is not required when the Income Tax Department initiates recovery proceedings against the assets of a defaulting partnership firm. It clarified that individual notice is necessary where recovery proceedings are initiated against the personal assets of an individual partner. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of four connected writ petitions concerning the recovery of income tax dues from RJK Investments and the auction of its properties.
Case Title : Agni Estates and Foundations Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.A.Nos.3427 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 275
On 23 September, the Madras High Court held that the period during which assessment proceedings remain stayed by a court must be excluded while computing the limitation period before determining whether an extension under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) is available. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that the limitation period under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act has to be computed by applying the statutory exclusions first, before examining whether the resulting date falls within the extended period under TOLA.
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.
Patna High Court Refuses To Interfere With ₹60.88 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against FCI Contractor
Case Title : M/s Anjani Kumar Singh v. Addnl. Commissioner (CCO) of CGST and Central Excise & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10227 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT)23
The Patna High Court on 28 August refused to interfere with a Service Tax demand of Rs. 60.88 lakh, along with interest and penalties, raised against a contractor engaged by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya dismissed the writ petition filed by Anjani Kumar Singh, while granting him liberty to pursue the statutory remedy available under law. It observed: “We have noticed that neither before the competent authority/assessing authority nor before this Court, the petitioner has produced the relevant tender document.”
Patna High Court Grants Interim Protection To Bihar Power Co. Against ₹29.23 Crore Tax Demand
Case Title : Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Patna & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8252 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 29
The Patna High Court on 22 September temporarily protected Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited from coercive recovery of an income tax demand of Rs. 29.23 crore. A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra directed the Assessing Officer/Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), as the case may be, to consider the company's application for interim protection within six weeks. Until then, no coercive recovery action can be taken against the company.
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.
Case Title : Subh Karan Yadav v. Income Tax Officer, Rewari, Haryana
Case Number : ITA-297-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 47
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 12 August held that capital gains exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be claimed where a residential property is sold and the proceeds are reinvested in another residential property purchased solely in the name of the taxpayer's wife. A Division Bench of Justices Deepak Sibal and Rupinderjit Chahal dismissed an appeal filed by Subh Karan Yadav, a retired government employee, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) denying him the benefit of capital gains exemption.
Case Title : Jyoti Sareen v. Union of India and others
Case Number : CWP No.15791-2024 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 51
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the retrospective insertion of Section 147A could not validate reassessment notices issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officers when the statutory provision governing faceless reassessment under Section 151A remained unchanged. A Division Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Rupinderjit Chahal accordingly struck down Section 147A as unconstitutional, holding that the provision did not cure the legal defect identified in earlier judicial decisions concerning the authority of jurisdictional Assessing Officers to issue reassessment notices.
Income-Tax Authorities Should Take Liberal Approach To Condoning Filing Delays: Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Alaknanda Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : CWP No.24673 of 2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 53
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently observed that income-tax authorities should take a liberal approach while considering requests to condone delays in filing income-tax returns where genuine hardship is shown. A Division Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Sunish Bindlish made the observation while setting aside an order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, which rejected a cooperative society's request to condone a 34-day delay in filing its return for assessment year 2020-21.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside PCIT Order Rejecting Delay Condonation In HMT VRS Tax Claim
Case Title : Rajbir Singh v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others
Case Number : CWP No. 18800 of 2023 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 56
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 23 September set aside the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) rejection of an HMT Limited's employee's request to condone the delay in filing a revised return to claim an additional exemption on VRS compensation. A Division Bench of Justices Deepak Sibal and Sunish Bindlish held that delay in filing a revised income tax return cannot be treated as a standalone test while considering a request for condonation under CBDT Circular No. 9/2015.
Rajasthan HC
Income Tax Findings Have Evidentiary Value In Benami Proceedings: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : M/s Alishan Complex Private Limited v. The Initiating Officer
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1595 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 33
On 3 August, the Rajasthan High Court held that findings under the Income Tax Act, though not conclusive in proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions (PBPT) Act, have evidentiary value and must be considered by authorities deciding benami proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Shah allowed an appeal filed by Alishan Complex Private Limited against orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Adjudicating Authority and Initiating Officer, which had declared 79 properties purchased by the company as benami properties under the PBPT Act.
Rajasthan High Court Upholds TDS Disallowance Against Hindustan Zinc On UK Know-How Payment
Case Title : Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. The D.C.I.T. (Assessment)
Case Number : D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 65/2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 43
The Rajasthan High Court on 5 September dismissed Hindustan Zinc Limited's appeal against an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order sustaining the disallowance of a tax deduction claimed by the company for payment made towards technical know-how to a UK-based company. A Division Bench comprising Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar upheld the disallowance for Assessment Year 1994-95, holding that the payment made to Davy McKee (Stockton) Limited (DML) was subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act.
25-Year Pendency Cannot Allow Writ Court To Decide Disputed Facts In Tax Case: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5872/2001
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 49
The Rajasthan High Court on 21 August held that the mere pendency of a tax dispute for 25 years does not permit the Court to decide disputed questions of fact in writ proceedings on the basis of pleadings and affidavits, as this would bypass the fact-finding process under the Income Tax Act. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar declined to interfere with reassessment notices issued to Mahesh Kumar Gupta for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1999-2000, holding that the disputed factual issues should be examined by the competent Income Tax authorities.
Case Title : Secure Meters Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur
Case Number : D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 19/2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 50
The Rajasthan High Court on 5 September held that deductions available under different provisions of the Income Tax Act must be computed independently, and the restriction against double deduction can be applied only while allowing the deductions. A Division Bench of Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar allowed Secure Meters Ltd.'s appeal and set aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's finding on the computation of deductions under Sections 80-IA/80-IB and Section 80HHC for Assessment Year 2003-04.
Telangana HC
Case Title : DBS Technology Services India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.19502 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 46
The Telangana High Court on 3 July held that the Income Tax Department cannot reject a genuine claim for deduction on the sole ground of a technical or procedural lapse if the taxpayer is otherwise entitled to the benefit. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao set aside the order rejecting the deduction claimed by DBS Technology Services India Private Limited and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the company's claim in accordance with law.
Telangana High Court Upholds Capital Gains Tax Exemption Despite Delay In Villa Registration
Case Title : Sudhakar Reddy Mettu v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.78 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 52
The Telangana High Court has held that a taxpayer who invested capital gains in a residential villa under a joint development agreement cannot be denied tax exemption merely because the developer delayed construction and execution of the sale deed. The court observed that delays beyond the assessee's control cannot defeat the benefit intended under the law. A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda allowed the appeal filed by non-resident Indian Sudhakar Reddy Mettu. It set aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order denying him the exemption.
Burden Shifts To Revenue Once Taxpayer Proves Creditworthiness And Genuineness: Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s. Agarwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad
Case Number : INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.73 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 60
The Telangana High Court on 22 July held that once a taxpayer establishes the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of credits through sufficient documentary evidence, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to disprove the material with independent and cogent evidence, and deleted income tax additions totalling Rs. 5.58 crore against Agarwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda allowed the company's appeal and set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had sustained the additions.
Income Tax Department Can't Retain Tax Collected Twice On Same Income: Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s Premier Solar Power Tech Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 21429 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL)63
The Telangana High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot retain tax collected twice on the same income and that the Commissioner must exercise powers under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision enables revision of an assessment to provide relief against over-assessment, even where the mistake is attributable to the taxpayer. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda made the observation while allowing a writ petition filed by Premier Solar Power Tech Private Limited, which challenged the rejection of its claim that Rs. 6.85 crore had effectively been subjected to tax twice.
Case Title : Escientia Advanced Sciences Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.16627 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL)64
The Telangana High Court on 11 August held that the share premium received by Escientia Advanced Sciences Pvt. Ltd. from a non-resident shareholder on a fresh issue of equity shares is a capital receipt and cannot be treated as taxable income. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda allowed the company's writ petition and quashed a Rs. 44.07 crore tax demand raised for assessment year 2019-20.
Reassessment Objections Must Be Raised Before Assessing Officer First: Telangana High Court
Case Title : Nitin Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.24088 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 65
The Telangana High Court on 11 August declined to interfere with reassessment proceedings against Nitin Enterprises at the preliminary stage, holding that objections concerning the jurisdiction and validity of the reassessment must first be raised before the Assessing Officer and, if necessary, pursued through the statutory appellate remedies. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that proceedings initiated through a notice under Section 148A and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are preliminary in nature and do not by themselves determine any tax liability.
Telangana High Court Sets Aside 20% Pre-Deposit Condition For Tax Demand Stay In VSAIPPL-SMC Case
Case Title : M/s. VSAIPPL-SMC(JV) v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.27454, 27512 and 27534 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 67
The Telangana High Court on 20 August set aside orders directing VSAIPPL-SMC (JV) to pay 20% of its outstanding tax demand as a condition for staying recovery of the remaining demand, while allowing three writ petitions concerning Assessment Years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy noted that authorities cannot mechanically impose a condition requiring payment of 20% of an outstanding tax demand for granting stay of recovery and must independently exercise their discretion based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Case Title : M/s. Naandi Foundation v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.30560 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 71
The Telangana High Court on 7 September allowed a batch of petitions filed by Naandi Foundation challenging reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20 and set aside the order passed under Section 148A(3) and the consequential notice issued under Section 148. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that the mere need for “further in-depth scrutiny” of transactions cannot constitute information suggesting escapement of income.
Telangana High Court Quashes Reassessment Against Cyberabad Citizens Over Demerged Business Income
Case Title : M/s. Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.20450 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 72
The Telangana High Court on 7 September set aside the order dated 16 April 2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and the consequential notice under Section 148 issued to Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2019-20. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that income already disclosed and offered to tax by the entity to which a business was demerged cannot be treated as escaped income merely because the related transactions appeared against the original company's PAN.
ITAT
ITAT Delhi Quashes Search Assessment Over Defective Consolidated Satisfaction Note
Case Title : Sunwhite Realty Private Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle-6
Case Number : ITA No. 9135/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 216
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed a search assessment against Sunwhite Realty Private Limited over a defective satisfaction note recorded for multiple assessment years. A bench of Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member M. Balaganesh allowed the company's appeal against the assessment for the assessment year 2016–17. The assessment arose from a search conducted in the Ashish Begwani group cases. Sunwhite Realty challenged the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction. It argued that the proceedings had been initiated on the basis of a consolidated satisfaction note covering several assessment years. The company also contended that the note did not identify the seized material pertaining to it. Nor did it specify the assessment year to which those entries related.
ITAT Ahmedabad Allows Former BSNL Employee's Claim For Tax Exemption On VRS Compensation
Case Title : Jashvantbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad
Case Number : ITA No. 1145/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 215
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has recently allowed a former BSNL employee's claim for exemption on compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The tribunal held that he was entitled to the benefit under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act by following earlier coordinate Bench decisions on the issue. Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act provides a tax exemption for eligible retrenchment compensation received by an employee, subject to the prescribed conditions.
ITAT Jodhpur Deletes Business Expense Disallowance For Lack Of Adverse Findings
Case Title : Svaraj Trading and Agencies Ltd. & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur
Case Number : ITA Nos. 777/Jodh/2025 & Connected Matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(JOD) 217
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur, has allowed a batch of appeals filed by four companies, holding that business expenditure cannot be disallowed merely because the tax authorities considered the assessees to have minimal business activity. The tribunal found no adverse evidence questioning the genuineness of the expenditure and held that the disallowances sustained by the first appellate authority could not be justified on mere suspicion.
Case Title : Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd. v. Additional Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Range-3, Mumbai
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2161 & 2162/Mum/2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 218
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed reassessment proceedings against Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd.. The tribunal did so after finding that the Income Tax Department failed to establish that it had issued the mandatory notice before completing the reassessment. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd. is a Singapore-based sports rights and sports event management company involved in the management and promotion of sporting events.
ITAT Mumbai Rules Barclays Bank's Interest From Overseas Branches Not Taxable In India
Case Title : Barclays Bank PLC v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Connected Appeals
Case Number : ITA No. 5514/Mum/2001
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 219
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that interest earned by the Indian branches of Barclays Bank PLC from its Head Office, overseas branches and other overseas banks is not taxable in India. It ruled that transactions between the Indian branch and its Head Office amount to payments to self and cannot give rise to taxable income under domestic tax law. A bench of Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar observed that, while a permanent establishment may be treated as a distinct entity for attributing profits under a tax treaty, the Indian branch and the Head Office remain the same legal entity under domestic tax law.
Case Title : Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Cross Appeals
Case Number : ITA Nos. 843/MUM/2024 and 941/MUM/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 220
A holding company cannot issue shares on behalf of its subsidiary to satisfy the conditions for claiming tax benefits arising from a demerger, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held. "The Holding company cannot issue shares on behalf of the subsidiary and its obligations are restricted to its own legal liabilities and obligations under the law," the tribunal observed. A bench of Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar partly allowed Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's cross-appeal for the assessment year 2015-16.
ITAT Jaipur Upholds CA Student's Claim For Section 87A Rebate On Short-Term Capital Gains Tax
Case Title : Priyamvada Singhal v. DCIT-Circle 7, Jaipur
Case Number : ITA No. 1412/JPR/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(JAI) 221
The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 June held that a resident individual who opts for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act and whose total income falls within the prescribed threshold is entitled to claim rebate under Section 87A even against tax payable on short-term capital gains under Section 111A. Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta allowed an appeal filed by Priyamvada Singhal, a CA student and directed the Revenue to grant the rebate for Assessment Year 2024–25. She observed: “I hold therefore that the denial of grant of rebate to the assessee u/s 87A of the Act is not in accordance with law. I accordingly direct that the assessee be granted the rebate u/s 87A of the Act.”
ITAT Mumbai Holds Tax Appeals Infructuous After Company's Liquidation And Sale As Going Concern
Case Title : EMI Transmission Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1071/Mum/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 222
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that no effective adjudication survives in income tax appeals filed by EMI Transmission Limited after the company underwent liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). It noted that the company had been sold as a going concern and the liquidation proceedings had been closed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). A bench of Judicial Member Amit Shukla and Accountant Member Girish Agrawal was hearing EMI Transmission Limited's appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19 against orders sustaining various income tax additions.
ITAT Mumbai Deletes ₹572.83 Crore Brand Royalty Transfer Pricing Adjustment Against Vodafone Idea
Case Title : Vodafone Idea Limited (Successor of Vodafone Mobile Services Limited) v. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 8971/DEL/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 223
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a ₹572.83 crore transfer pricing adjustment on Vodafone Idea Ltd.'s payment of brand royalty. It held that the controlled transaction relied on by the tax department could not be used as a comparable under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. A bench of Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant and Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee observed: "The Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, while dealing with identical transfer pricing adjustments in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, as well as in the cases of its group concerns referred to hereinabove, have consistently held that the agreement entered into between Virgin Enterprises Ltd. and Virgin Mobile USA LLC, being a controlled transaction, cannot constitute a valid comparable for determining the arm's length price under the CUP Method. The Tribunal has further held that the arm's length price of an international transaction has to be determined only by comparing it with comparable uncontrolled transactions in accordance with Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Revenue has not brought to our notice any distinguishing feature in the facts of the year under consideration nor any subsequent judicial pronouncement taking a contrary view."
ITAT Delhi Restores ₹1.43 Crore Addition Over Alleged Cash Salary Payments
Case Title : DCIT v. ECR Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 9107/Del/2025 (Cross Objection No. 56/Del/2026)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 224
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently upheld an addition of ₹1.43 crore towards alleged unexplained cash salary payments. It held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition without carrying out any inquiry or seeking a remand report despite the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. A bench of Judicial Member Madhumita Roy and Accountant Member Kriwant Sahay allowed the Revenue's appeal and dismissed the assessee's cross-objection.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment Based Solely On Investigation Wing Report
Case Title : V & S International Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 5782/Del/2024 (AY 2005-06)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 225
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently quashed reassessment proceedings against V & S International Pvt. Ltd., a readymade garments manufacturer and exporter. It held that the Assessing Officer reopened the completed assessment solely on information received from the Investigation Wing, without independently examining the material. The tribunal observed that the absence of a "live link" between the information and the reasons recorded made the reopening unsustainable. A bench of Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra held that the Assessing Officer had not undertaken any independent verification before issuing the reassessment notice.
Interest On Unspent Government Grants Cannot Be Treated As Separate Income: ITAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Hydro Engineering College Society v. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Bilaspur (H.P.)
Case Number : ITA No. 1183/CHANDI/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHANDI) 226
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that interest earned on unspent government grants parked in fixed deposits retains the same character as the grants themselves. It cannot be treated as an independent source of income while determining whether an educational institution is substantially financed by the government. A Chandigarh tribunal comprising Judicial Member Laliet Kumar and Accountant Member Manoj Kumar Aggarwal allowed the appeal filed by Hydro Engineering College Society.
ITAT Delhi Allows Paper Company's Appeal In Captive Power Transfer Pricing Dispute
Case Title : M/s K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd. v. ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 5741/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 227
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed an appeal filed by K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd. against transfer pricing adjustments that had denied the company a tax deduction on profits earned from transferring electricity and steam from its captive power plant to its manufacturing unit. The tribunal held that electricity generated by the company's eligible captive power unit and supplied to its non-eligible manufacturing unit should be valued at the tariff charged by the State electricity distribution company to industrial consumers.
FAR Analysis Mandatory For TP Comparables, Mere “Functional Comparability” Insufficient: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : A. Hartrodt India Private Limited v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 5823/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 229
On 3 July, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that in transfer pricing analysis, a company cannot be included as a comparable merely on the basis of a general assertion that it is “functionally comparable”, and that a proper Functions, Assets and Risks (FAR) analysis is mandatory before inclusion. Accountant Member Ramit Kochar and Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan partly allowed an appeal by A. Hartrodt India Private Limited for statistical purposes and restored the matter to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for fresh adjudication.
Case Title : ACIT v. Bonlon Industries Ltd.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 7987, 7988 & 7989/Del/2025 with CO Nos. 5, 6 & 7/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 228
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of a ₹9.16 crore addition over alleged bogus purchases after finding that the taxpayer had produced extensive documentary evidence to support the transactions, despite the Revenue relying, among other things, on the retrospective cancellation of the supplier's GST registration. The tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had accepted the corresponding sales and had not rejected the books of account before making an ad hoc addition of 12.5% of the purchases.
ITAT Delhi Deletes ₹15 Crore Share Premium Addition, Says AO Cannot Reject Company's DCF Valuation
Case Title : MI Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT-16(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 7051/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 230
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that an Assessing Officer cannot reject a company's chosen Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for valuing shares merely because its actual financial performance differs from projections. Allowing MI Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal in part, the tribunal observed, “We are therefore of the considered view that rejection of DCF method adopted by the assessee by the AO is unwarranted and against the law.”
ITAT Ahmedabad Holds Shell Company Allegation Alone Cannot Justify ₹44.49 Crore Section 68 Addition
Case Title : DCIT v. Jas Infra Space Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 2070/Ahd/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 231
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 6 July held that the Income Tax Department cannot treat loans received by a company as unexplained cash credits merely on the basis of allegations that the lender companies are shell entities, when the taxpayer has furnished evidence establishing their identity, financial capacity and genuineness of the transactions. Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleting additions made against Jas Infra Space Pvt. Ltd. under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act (which deals with unexplained cash credits), except for a limited issue concerning interest payments of Rs.12.15 lakh.
Revenue Cannot Disallow Purchases As Bogus After Accepting Corresponding Sales: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Gopallal Mathurdas Vaishnav v. ITO
Case Number : ITA Nos. 733/Ahd/2026 and 728/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 232
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently quashed the reopening of an assessment and deleted an addition of ₹22.47 crore made against a trader in copper scrap and ingots, holding that the Revenue failed to establish that the purchases were bogus despite accepting the corresponding sales. A tribunal comprising Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta observed: "If the assessee has made the sales, it is obvious that he has also made the purchases. It is also not the case of the AO that the assessee had made the purchases in question from some other party or from grey market.The impugned order of the AO and the appellate order of the CIT(A) are not based on any reasonable findings given after appreciation of the evidences furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned additions made/confirmed by the lower authorities are not sustainable, the same are accordingly, ordered to be deleted."
ITAT New Delhi Quashes NIIT Revision, Says Action Was Triggered By Higher Authorities' 'Pressures'
Case Title : NIIT Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II), New Delhi (with connected matters)
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2058 to 2063/Del/2010 and ITA No. 4096/Del/2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 233
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 8 July held that revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained when the Commissioner of Income Tax acts under the pressure of higher authorities instead of independently applying his mind. Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member M. Balaganesh partly allowed NIIT Ltd.'s appeals for Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2005-06 and quashed the revision proceedings initiated against the company. The Bench also dismissed the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03, noting: “We have no hesitation to conclude that the entire revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act had been triggered only based on the dictates / pressures from the higher authorities and not based on any independent application of mind by the Learned CIT in the manner known to law.”
ITAT Delhi Deletes ₹13.97 Crore TP Adjustment Against Coca-Cola India Over Delayed Receivables
Case Title : DCIT, International Taxation v. Coca Cola India Inc.
Case Number : ITA No. 8275/Del/2018 with CO No. 73/Del/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 235
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that Coca Cola India Inc.'s Indian branch cannot be subjected to a transfer pricing adjustment over delayed recovery of receivables from its Associated Enterprises (AEs) where it had no borrowings and its working capital requirements were entirely funded by its US head office. A bench of Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman partly allowed the Revenue's appeal only on the issue of interest under the Income Tax Act.
Section 263 Assessment Cannot Survive After Original Order Is Quashed As Time Barred: ITAT Kolkata
Case Title : JCIT (In-Situ), Circle-1(1), Kolkata v. Dozco India Private Limited and Cross Objection
Case Number : ITA No. 1018/KOL/2026 and C.O. No. 37/KOL/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 234
On 8 July, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that a fresh assessment order passed pursuant to revision proceedings cannot survive once the original assessment has been quashed as time barred. It becomes “invalid and void ab initio” since the original assessment no longer exists in law. Judicial Member Pradip Kumar Choubey and Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar allowed the cross objection filed by Dozco India Private Limited and dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous.
Case Title : OPC Asset Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD)
Case Number : ITA No. 2230/Chny/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 236
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 6 July held that discounting charges arising from the assignment of future rent receivables on a non-recourse basis cannot be treated as interest under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore do not attract tax deduction at source (TDS) under Section 194A (which requires deduction of tax on interest other than interest on securities). A Single Member Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar allowed seven appeals filed by OPC Asset Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had treated the discount retained by financiers as interest liable for TDS deduction.
AO Cannot Grant Fresh Opportunity To Extend Reassessment Notice Deadline: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Scarlet Tradelink Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad
Case Number : ITA No. 869/AHD/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 237
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 7 July held that a reassessment notice issued after the expiry of the prescribed “surviving period” under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation. Economics Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary allowed the appeal filed by Scarlet Tradelink Private Limited against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre for Assessment Year 2016-17 and quashed the reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Ahmedabad Upholds Rejection Of Tax Deduction Claim On ₹12 Lakh Donation To Political Party
Case Title : Prasana Jayantkumar Bhatt v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Case Number : ITA No. 426/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 238
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the denial of a tax deduction claimed by a salaried taxpayer on a ₹12 lakh donation made to a political party, holding that he failed to establish that the contribution was genuine and eligible for deduction. A division bench of Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary observed, "the assessee has failed to establish that the impugned contribution represented a genuine donation eligible for deduction under section 80GGC of the Act."
ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment After AO Failed To Decide Objections Before Proceeding
Case Title : Meramandali Finvest Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 7258/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 239
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently quashed a reassessment against Meramandali Finvest Ltd., holding that the Assessing Officer was required to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening by passing a separate speaking order before proceeding with the reassessment. A bench of Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra observed: "It is now settled law by a series of judicial precedents that the failure of the Assessing Officer to dispose of objections filed by the assessee against the reopening notice by passing a speaking order, becomes fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 and renders any reassessment order passed thereafter null and void."
ITAT Chennai Upholds Deletion Of Unexplained Money Addition Against Forex Commission Agent
Case Title : The Income Tax Officer v. Shri Jaisingh Shankar
Case Number : ITA No.: 2931/CHNY/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 240
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹3.44 crore made against an individual who worked as a commission agent for foreign exchange companies. It held that cash withdrawn from the agent's own bank account for disbursal to customers could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, which addresses unexplained assets. The case involved an individual who acted as an authorised sub-agent for Transcorp International Ltd. and Muthoot Forex Ltd.
Late Corrigendum To Final Assessment Order Cannot Cure Failure To Follow DRP Directions: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Syniverse Technologies Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon
Case Number : ITA No. 2056/Del/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 241
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed an assessment order passed against an Indian subsidiary of a foreign technology company. The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not rectify the failure to give effect to the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) directions by issuing a corrigendum after the statutory time limit had expired. A bench of Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman observed that the final assessment order, passed without incorporating the DRP's directions, was unsustainable.
Case Title : National Lubricating Grease Institute India Chapter v. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh
Case Number : ITA No. 8271/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 242
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 10 July held that an institution does not lose its charitable character merely because its activities benefit a specific industry, and set aside the Commissioner (Exemptions)'s order rejecting registration of the National Lubricating Grease Institute India Chapter under Sections 12AA/12AB of the Income Tax Act. A Bench comprising Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Vimal Kumar held: “Only because of specific group of participants of lubricating grease industry are directly benefitted cannot be a ground to question the charitable nature of a Society.”
Case Title : KBC Bank Naamloze Vennootschap v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No. 8160/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 243
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) the issue of taxability of a ₹3.14 crore write-back of general provision for standard assets, observing that if the assessee had already accounted for the amount in its profit and loss account and neutralised its effect while computing taxable income, it could not be brought to tax again. A bench of Judicial Member Beena Pillai and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia partly allowed the appeal filed by KBC Bank Naamloze Vennootschap for statistical purposes.
Carbon Credit Sale Receipts Are Capital Gains, Not Taxable Before AY 2017-18 : ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : Jindal Saw Ltd. (formerly Saw Pipes Ltd.) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2383 & 2384/Del/2018, 2747 & 2748/Del/2018 and 463/Del/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 244
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 13 July held that receipts from the sale of carbon credits are capital receipts and are not taxable for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and partly allowed the appeals filed by Jindal Saw Ltd. (formerly known as Saw Pipes Ltd.). The Bench observed: “We conclude in this factual backdrop that the assessee's impugned identical receipt(s) derived from sale/transfer of carbon credits is not taxable being capital in nature which also deserve to be excluded for section 115JB MAT computation in very terms.”
Case Title : DCIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) v. Standard Chartered Bank & Standard Chartered Bank v. DCIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(2)
Case Number : ITA Nos. 4247 & 4275/Mum/2025 and ITA Nos. 4264 & 4265/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 245
Salary paid by the head office of a foreign bank to expatriate employees working exclusively for its Indian operations cannot be treated as head office expenditure merely because the payment was initially made outside India, the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held. A bench of Judicial Member Beena Pillai and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' order allowing Standard Chartered Bank's claim for deduction of expatriate salary expenditure.
Case Title : SFDC Ireland Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 2137/Del/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 246
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 July held that receipts from automated software services cannot be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) without first examining whether the services involve the requisite human intervention and possess the characteristics of specialised technical services. Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Brajesh Kumar Singh allowed an appeal filed by SFDC Ireland Ltd., and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication for failing to examine the issue in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Kotak Securities Ltd., which distinguishes technical services from a mere facility.
ITAT Delhi Remands Partnership Firm's Reassessment, Faults Authorities' Cryptic Orders
Case Title : Accurate Pressings v. ITO
Case Number : ITA No. 5875/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 247
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a reassessment involving a partnership firm's write-back of a retired partner's capital balance after finding that the tax authorities passed cryptic orders without specifying the provision under which the amount was chargeable to tax. A coram of Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar US and Accountant Member Ramit Kochar partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. While upholding the reopening of the assessment, it restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh examination of the addition on merits.
ITAT Delhi Deletes ₹5.19 Crore AMP Adjustment Against Fujifilm India Following Sony Ericsson Ruling
Case Title : Fujifilm India Private Limited v. Assessing Officer
Case Number : ITA No. 3446/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 248
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 20 July held that a transfer pricing adjustment for Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenditure cannot be sustained when it is computed by applying the Bright Line Test (BLT), following the Delhi High Court's ruling in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. A Bench of Accountant Member Ramit Kochar and Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar partly allowed the appeal filed by Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd. and deleted the Rs. 5.19 crore transfer pricing adjustment made by the authorities. It clarified that the parties would remain bound by the outcome of the Revenue's pending Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the Sony Ericsson judgment.
ITAT Mumbai Grants LTCG Relief To Taxpayer, Rejects Revenue's Claim That Scrip Was Penny Stock
Case Title : Shripal Roopchand Jain v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(3)(4), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No. 5560/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM)
The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed an individual taxpayer's claim for exemption on long-term capital gains arising from the sale of shares after finding that the transactions were genuine and supported by documentary evidence. It observed that there was nothing on record to establish that the company whose shares were sold was a penny stock. The tribunal also found no material linking the assessee to any alleged accommodation entry operators. Judicial Member Sandeep Gosain observed that the revenue had not produced material to show that Shree Shaleen Textile Limited was a penny stock company.
Charitable Trust Registration Can't Be Denied Over Expenditure Concerns Alone: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Visan Foundation v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Faridabad
Case Number : ITA No. 3604/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 250
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, has recently directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to grant charitable trust registration to Visan Foundation. It held that registration cannot be denied merely over concerns regarding expenditure without first examining whether the trust's objects are charitable and its activities are genuine. A coram of Judicial Member Kavitha Rajagopal and Accountant Member M. Balaganesh observed, "We do not find any discussion as to the objects of the Trust, neither as to the genuineness of its activities. Rather, it was with regard to the expenditure claimed by the assessee towards food, rent, and training expenses, more specifically with regard to the food expenses incurred by the assessee. This, in our view, is not justifiable reasoning for denial of registration."
Case Title : Maersk India Private Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No. 5856/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 251
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 1 July held that the nomenclature given to a payment in the books of account cannot determine the true nature of a transaction and that tax deduction at source (TDS) provisions do not apply where a payment is only reimbursement of expenditure without any income element in the hands of the recipient. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav allowed an appeal filed by Maersk India Private Limited against the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act (which disallows certain expenses where tax was required to be deducted but was not deducted).
Case Title : Chanel (India) Private Limited v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 2341/Del/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 252
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi has recently granted relief to luxury fashion brand Chanel's Indian arm, quashing reassessment proceedings initiated against Chanel (India) Private Limited beyond four years. It also deleted a ₹3.08 crore transfer pricing adjustment. It also deleted a ₹3.08 crore transfer pricing adjustment. The tribunal held that the subsidy received from its associated enterprise formed part of the company's operating income because it directly compensated its unabsorbed distribution costs.
Case Title : Ram Dattatray Kaldate v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad
Case Number : ITA No. 2177/PUN/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(PUN) 253
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the ex gratia amount received by an employee under Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd.'s voluntary retirement scheme is a capital receipt and cannot be taxed as income from other sources. Observing that it had consistently taken the same view in identical cases involving other employees of the company, the bench ruled, "We find that the identical issue had come up before the tribunal in the case of other employees of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. and the tribunal has consistently decided the impugned issue in favour of the assessee holding that the impugned amount received by the assessee under the Scheme is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee."
Case Title : Sudhir Agrawal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3823 to 3830/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 254
The New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 29 July held that where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the “other person” under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act is the same, the limitation period for completing assessment begins from the date of transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 and not from the date of recording satisfaction. A Bench of Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal quashed the assessment orders passed against Sudhir Agrawal for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2020-21, holding that the orders passed on 30 March 2023 were barred by limitation as the transfer order under Section 127 was passed on 20 October 2020.
Disseminating Bhagavad Gita Teachings Can't Be Treated As Religious Propagation: ITAT Chandigarh
Case Title : World Sankirtan Tour Trust v. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1462 & 1463/CHD/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHA) 255
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh has recently held that dissemination of the philosophical teachings of the Bhagavad Gita cannot, by itself, be equated with the propagation of religion or the advancement of a particular religious denomination. Therefore, the tribunal held that World Sankirtan Tour Trust was a charitable institution, not a religious entity, and was entitled to tax benefits because its dominant objects and actual activities were charitable in nature.
Case Title : Unicharm India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA Nos. 5938/Del/2018, 6088/Del/2018, 6104/Del/2018, 6203/Del/2018 & 7414/Del/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 256
On 30 July, the New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that AMP expenditure incurred by an Indian entity cannot be treated as an international transaction for transfer pricing purposes without any agreement, arrangement or understanding with its associated enterprise (AE), following the Delhi High Court's ruling in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal held that the issue of whether AMP expenditure constitutes an international transaction has been settled against the Revenue by decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and deleted the transfer pricing adjustment made against Unicharm India Private Limited.
HCL's Corporate Guarantees For Overseas Subsidiaries Attract Transfer Pricing Provisions: Delhi ITAT
Case Title : HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1842/Del/2014, 2327/Del/2015 & 1645/Del/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 257
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that corporate guarantees issued by HCL Technologies Ltd. to its step-down overseas subsidiaries amount to indirect financing and therefore qualify as international transactions requiring transfer pricing benchmarking. Rejecting the Transfer Pricing Officer's reliance on commercial bank guarantee rates with an additional 200-basis-point mark-up, the tribunal held that an arm's length guarantee commission of 0.50% was appropriate.
Case Title : Addl. CIT, Special Range-6 v. MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 6397/Del/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 258
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd., holding that payment gateway charges paid to banks are fees for banking services and not commission or brokerage. Upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' order deleting the disallowance, the tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's ruling in MakeMyTrip's own case and observed, "Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that no TDS was required to be made u/s 194H in respect of payment of gateway charges made to the Banks and, therefore, revenue's appeal on this issue is dismissed."
TPO Can't Treat Goodwill Amortisation As Operating Expense In Transfer Pricing: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Janes Defense India LLP v. DCIT, Circle 28(1), Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 5387/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 259
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that amortisation of goodwill arising from acquisition of a business cannot be treated as an operating expenditure while computing the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for calculating transfer pricing. Observing that such amortisation is "an abnormal item arising out of acquisition of business and not a regular operating expenditure", the tribunal ruled that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) could not include it in operating expenditure for determining the arm's length price.
ITAT Mumbai Quashes PCIT Revision Against Mumbai Trader As 'Larger Issue' Was Already Under Appeal
Case Title : M P Trading Company v. PCIT, Mumbai-20
Case Number : ITA No. 1107/MUM/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 260
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has refused to uphold the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) attempt to revise the assessment of a Mumbai-based trading company over alleged bogus purchases, ruling that the dispute was already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. A coram of Judicial Member Challa Nagendra Prasad and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar observed, "The larger issue as to whether the purchases made by the assessee from Mahadev Enterprises and Tirupati Traders were genuine or not, or whether the profit element embedded therein should be estimated at 25%, was already the subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, since the larger issue was pending before the Ld. CIT(A), we hold that the Ld. PCIT was barred from invoking revisional jurisdiction by virtue of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we hold that to the extent of treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in respect of purchases made from Mahadev Enterprises and Tirupati Traders, the order of the Ld. PCIT is bad in law."
Case Title : Honda Trading Asia Company Ltd. v. DCIT (International Taxation), Noida
Case Number : ITA Nos. 876/Del/2021, 2367/Del/2022, 2368/Del/2022 and 888/Del/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 261
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that a mere presumption that employees of a parent company deputed to an Indian group entity rendered services on behalf of a non-resident assessee, without any cogent material to support it, is insufficient to establish a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. A coram of Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman observed that the Revenue had failed to establish that Honda Trading Asia Company Ltd. had a fixed place of business or any employees deputed by it in India.
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.
Case Title : KRISHNA MOHAN POTLURI VS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE
Case Number : ITA 101/Viz/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(VIZ) 266
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Visakhapatnam has recently quashed reassessment proceedings against an assessee after holding that the Income Tax Department could not use the amended reassessment provisions to reopen a matter after the statutory time limit for assessment had already expired. The bench of Vice President Vijay Pal Rao and Accountant Member Manjunatha G observed, “Since the assessment u/s 153A already attained finality by expiry of limitation u/s 153B of the Act, the said limitation cannot be extended by resorting to subsequent amendment u/s 148 of the Act.”
Photograph Of Handwritten Note Cannot Independently Prove Cash Transaction: ITAT Chennai
Case Title : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai v. Ivar Estates Private Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 1857/Chny/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 267
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a photograph of a handwritten document cannot independently establish an alleged cash payment when it is merely an electronic reproduction of the same document. The Bench of Judicial Member Manu Kumar Giri and Accountant Member S.R. Raghunatha made the observation while upholding the deletion of a ₹18.87 crore addition against Ivar Estates Private Limited. The Revenue had alleged that the company paid the amount in cash, over and above the recorded consideration, for purchasing land at Vadapalani.
Delhi ITAT Allows Foreign AE As Tested Party Under RPM In ₹13.42 Crore Transfer Pricing Case
Case Title : ACIT v. POSCO International India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 2430/Del/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 268
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 19 August held that a foreign Associated Enterprise (AE) can be selected as the tested party under the Resale Price Method (RPM) for back-to-back merchant trading transactions where it is the least complex entity and reliable comparable data is available. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of a Rs. 13.42 crore transfer pricing adjustment concerning POSCO International India's purchase of steel slabs and HRCF coils from its Korean AE, POSCO Korea, for resale through merchant trading.
Case Title : Hero Fincorp Limited v. DCIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 3094/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 269
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 August deleted a Rs. 168.31 crore share premium addition made against Hero FinCorp for Assessment Year 2018-19 under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan held that the company's Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) projections could not be rejected merely by comparing them with subsequent financial results, and allowed the company's appeal.
Case Title : ACIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi v. WNS Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 663/Del/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 270
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 August upheld the exclusion of Eclerx Services, TCS E Serve, Infosys BPO and Acropetal Technologies from WNS Business Consulting Services' comparable set, observing that transfer-pricing comparables must be assessed on their actual functional profile rather than merely on their presence in the same broad industry. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 and upheld the deletion of the Rs. 87.72 lakh transfer-pricing adjustment.
ITAT New Delhi Quashes Reassessment Based On Information Already Available On Record
Case Title : JNJ Electronics Limited & Ors. v. DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3220 to 3224/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 271
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 August 2026 held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated by presenting information already available on the assessment record as fresh material. Such proceedings are without jurisdiction. A Bench comprising Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Singh allowed five connected appeals involving Jay Ace Technologies Limited, JNJ Electronics Limited and other companies of the JP Minda Group for Assessment Year 2013-14.
Case Title : ACIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi v. Royal Sales Private Limited
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2401 & 2402/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 272
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 August held that an Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years falling outside the statutory block prescribed under the provision. The provision applies to the assessment of income of a person other than the person searched, where seized material is found to relate to such person. A Bench comprising Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Singh upheld the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in favour of Royal Sales Private Limited and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for assessment years (AYs) 2010-11 and 2011-12.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Revision Against Sr. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi For CCIT's Unauthorised PCIT Notice
Case Title : Shri Mukul Rohatgi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-61(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 3714/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 273
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 28 August quashed the revisionary order passed against Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Assessment Year 2022-23, holding that the Section 263 notice issued by the officer after his promotion to CCIT was without jurisdiction. A Bench comprising Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member Sanjay Awasthi held that an officer promoted as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) cannot exercise the powers of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act without an express authorisation under Section 120(2).
Case Title : M/s HSB Home Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 6520/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 274
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 31 August held that where both purchases and corresponding sales are found to be bogus, the entire purchase value cannot be added to income without accounting for the profit element arising from the transactions. Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Sanjay Awasthi partly allowed HSB Home Solutions Ltd.'s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, upholding the reopening of the assessment and directing the Assessing Officer to apply a 5% gross profit rate to the turnover instead of adding the entire purchase value.
Live Cricket Broadcast Payments Not Taxable as Royalty, Non-Live Broadcast Rights Are: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : ACIT v. Times Content Limited (now known as Time Internet Limited)
Case Number : ITA Nos. 5328, 5331 & 5333/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 275
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has reiterated that payments for live cricket broadcasts are not taxable as royalty. However, the portion attributable to repeat or non-live broadcasts can be treated as royalty. Relying on earlier judgments, including the Supreme court's ruling in CIT v. Sri Lanka Cricket, the tribunal ruled: “Accordingly, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held the live telecast as not the Royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act. However, the repeat telecast i.e. non live telecast is not out of the scope of Royalty."
ITAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹1.53 Crore EDC TDS Demand Against DLF Homes
Case Title : DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited v. DCIT, TDS Circle 72(1), Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 396/DEL/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 278
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside an appellate order upholding a ₹1.53 crore tax demand against DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited over External Development Charges. The tribunal sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA/HSVP) had met the conditions under the Income Tax Act that could protect the developer from being treated as an assessee-in-default.
Omission Of Specified Domestic Transactions From Transfer Pricing Regime Prospective: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 6528/Del/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 277
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 2 September held that the omission of specified domestic transactions from the transfer pricing regime cannot operate retrospectively where the legislature has expressly provided that the amendment will apply prospectively. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal upheld the transfer pricing proceedings against Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd. for Assessment Year 2013-14 involving an adjustment of Rs. 5.12 crore.
Turnover Filter Cannot Be Applied Mechanically To Exclude Transfer Pricing Comparables: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3695/Del/2015 & 2781/Ahd/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 278
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 9 September held that transfer pricing comparables cannot be excluded merely by applying a rigid turnover filter where the entities are otherwise functionally comparable. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal partly allowed twin appeals filed by GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 against transfer pricing adjustments and various corporate tax disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : DCIT v. I Energizer Holdings Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 4654/Del/2015 with Cross Objection No. 397/Del/2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 279
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has ruled that tax authorities must issue a draft assessment order to an eligible taxpayer before passing a final order if they propose a change prejudicial to the taxpayer's interests. A foreign company is expressly included in the definition of an “eligible assessee” for this purpose. The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer “firstly has to mandatorily forward a draft” of the proposed assessment order when such a prejudicial variation is proposed.
ITAT Delhi Rejects Nil MFN Rate Under India-Netherlands DTAA Over Lack Of Specific Notification
Case Title : Travelport Global Distribution System BV v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA No. 2411/Del/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 280
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a 1999 notification amending the India-Netherlands tax treaty only reduced the tax rate on interest from 15% to 10% and did not extend the Nil-rate exemption available under the India-USA or India-Italy treaties. The bench of Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra held that the absence of a specific notification extending the exemption meant that the benefit could not be imported through the treaty's Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause.
Case Title : Universal Tractor Holding LLC v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 2216/Del/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 281
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, has held that interest awarded under a foreign arbitral award loses its separate character as “interest” once the award is enforced and deemed to be a decree by the Delhi High Court. The tribunal ruled that the interest received as part of the decree was not taxable in India. “To our mind therefore, the damages, including the interest has assumed the character of a 'judgement debt' and is beyond the purview of Indian Income Tax Act,” the tribunal observed.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment Against Company Over Defective Notice
Case Title : RNT Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-7
Case Number : ITA Nos. 8528, 8529 and 8530/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 282
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the reassessment proceedings against RNT Metals Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year (AY) 2021-22, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 did not provide the statutory period prescribed for filing the return. It also quashed the company's regular assessment for AY 2022-23, holding that, in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer could not continue the pending Section 143(3) assessment after a Section 132 search and had to follow the special mechanism under Section 148.
Case Title : Oxonian India Foundation v. CIT (Exemptions)
Case Number : ITA No. 5582/Del/2026 and ITA No. 5583/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 283
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the tax department to grant Oxonian India Foundation registration as a charitable organisation and approval under Section 80G. It held that scholarships paid in India to Indian students studying abroad cannot be treated as money spent outside India merely because the students later pursue their education overseas.
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).
Other Developments
CBDT Notifies No TDS on Specified Payments to Eligible IFSC Units Under Income-tax Act, 2025
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has exempted specified payments made to eligible units operating in an International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) from tax deduction at source (TDS), provided the units have opted to claim deductions under the Income-tax Act, 2025. The exemption is available only for the categories of payments notified by the government and is subject to prescribed conditions.
Centre Notifies Oman's Social Protection Fund For Tax Exemption On Eligible Investments In India
The central government has notified Oman's Social Protection Fund (SPF) as a specified person eligible to claim tax exemption on qualifying investments made in India under the Income Tax Act, 2025. This will apply to eligible investments made from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette until March 31, 2030, subject to prescribed conditions. The notification, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), requires the fund to file income tax returns within the prescribed timelines along with a compliance certificate from an accountant. It must also disclose details of its investments in India every quarter.
CBDT Notifies Rules For Small Taxpayers To Disclose Undisclosed Foreign Assets, Income
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has notified rules allowing taxpayers to disclose certain foreign assets that were not reported in their income-tax returns, including assets acquired while they were non-residents but not disclosed after they became residents in India. The disclosure has to be made by December 31, 2026. The rules deal with two different kinds of cases. One is where the foreign income or asset itself was undisclosed. The other covers certain foreign assets that were not disclosed in the income tax return, even though they were acquired from income earned while the taxpayer was a non-resident or from income proposed to be taxed in India.