LiveLawBiz Direct Tax Half-Yearly Digest: January - June, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
3 July 2026 2:37 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1) Vs ADANI WILMAR LIMITED
Case Number : SLP(C) 4944/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 35
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with a Gujarat High Court judgment that had quashed the reopening of Adani Wilmar Limited's income tax assessment for the 2013–14 assessment year, dismissing a special leave petition filed by the revenue. A Bench of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said it was not inclined to step in after examining the record. “Having regard to the facts of this case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The SLP is dismissed. The question of law, if any, shall be kept open,” the bench said.
Case Title : The Income Tax Officer & Ors. v. Man Mohan Agarwal HUF
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4270/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 38
The Supreme Court has dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Income Tax Department against a common Telangana High Court judgment setting aside reassessment notices issued against several taxpayers as time-barred. The plea challenged a common judgment of the Telangana High Court, which endorsed the Delhi High Court's view that mere generation or signing of a reassessment notice does not amount to issuance and that a notice is issued only when it is dispatched.
Case Title : DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 01 CHANDIGARH & ANR. VS FINDOC FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number : Diary No. 71435/2025
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on an appeal by the Income Tax Department against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that held that an Assessing Officer abdicated his quasi-judicial function by repeatedly consulting superior officers before passing an assessment order. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on both the application seeking condonation of delay and the Special Leave Petition. The matter is listed next on March 16, 2026.
PIL In Supreme Court Challenges Income Tax Law Allowing Search Of Digital Devices, Cloud Data
Case Title : Vishwaprasad Alva v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 114/2026
A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of provisions in the Income Tax Act, 2025 that empower tax authorities to conduct searches of “computer systems” and “virtual digital space”, including personal electronic devices, cloud servers, emails and private communications. The plea, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by entrepreneur Vishwaprasad Alva, assails Section 247 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, as well as the corresponding provisions under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title : Arun Singh v. Union of India
Case Number : Diary No. 50293/2025
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking directions to introduce safeguards so that property buyers are not unknowingly penalised for failing to deduct tax at source (TDS) while purchasing property worth more than Rs 50 lakhs. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and dismissed the petition after brief submissions.
Case Title : Sirez Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4721/2026
The Supreme Court is to examine whether a delay in filing a return of income can be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan issued notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by Sirez Limited challenging the judgment dated December 8, 2025, of the Delhi High Court.
Case Title : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 VS M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7819/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 92
The Supreme Court recently declined to entertain the Income Tax Department's Special Leave Petition against a Bombay High Court judgment that had quashed assessment orders passed in the names of Reliance Polyethylene Limited and Reliance Polypropylene Limited after they had ceased to exist following their merger with Reliance Industries Limited. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed the petition after recording that, pursuant to the High Court's ruling, the department had already issued a fresh notice on July 17, 2025.
Case Title : Vishwaprasad Alva vs Union of India
Case Number : WP(C) No. 114 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 102
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the search and seizure powers over digital devices under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its corresponding provision, Section 247 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, which is set to come into force from April 1, 2026. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the Government of India seeking modifications or clarifications regarding the provision. The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
Case Title : PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 VS DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD.
Case Number : DIARY NO 4477/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 108
The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court which had granted relief to DLF Home Developers Ltd. by deleting a disallowance of Rs 80.66 crore made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. The Court held that the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and affirmed by the Delhi High Court warranted no interference.
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd
Case Number : Diary No. 8091 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 112
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order quashing income tax reassessment proceedings initiated against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) for AY 2013-14 in relation to Rs 37.10 crore dividend income received through a trust structure. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed the Special Leave Petition, after being informed by the counsels that a previous matter on the same subject was dismissed by the supreme court.
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited
Case Number : Diary No(s). 4339/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 141
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court ruling that had quashed income tax assessments issued in the names of Reliance Polyethylene Ltd. and Reliance Polypropylene Ltd. even after their merger with Reliance Industries Ltd., noting that the Revenue has issued a fresh notice pursuant to the High Court's decision. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the Revenue's special leave petitions after recording that the Revenue has issued fresh notice.
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 74314/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 143
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed special leave petitions filed by the Income Tax Department against RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd, the promoter holding company of NDTV, on the ground of a delay of 372 days, declining to condone the inordinate delay and leaving undisturbed the Delhi High Court's ruling quashing reassessment proceedings. Holding that no bona fide or plausible explanation had been furnished by the department, a bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed: “There is a delay of 372 days in filing these Special Leave Petitions and we do not find any bonafide and plausible explanation to condone this inordinate delay. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay.”
Supreme Court Dismisses Income Tax Appeal Against IDBI Bank Over Delay Of 275 Days
Case Title : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. Versus IDBI BANK LTD
Case Number : Diary No. 19495-2026
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the Income Tax Department's plea against IDBI Bank Ltd over a 275-day delay, refusing to interfere with the Bombay High Court's decision quashing reassessment proceedings for AY 2016-17. The High Court, in its order dated March 24, 2025 held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were factually incorrect, reflected non-application of mind, and amounted to an impermissible review based on change of opinion.
Case Title : Sanand Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 6 & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 9107 of 2012 with Civil Appeal No. 744 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 19487 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 186
The Supreme Court has held that the 35% share of gross sale proceeds received by Sanand Properties Pvt Ltd from an Association of Persons (AOP) formed for a Pune housing project was taxable business income and not an exempt share of profit, holding that the payment was insulated from project expenses and therefore bore the character of revenue rather than profit. A bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K V Viswanathan delivered the ruling in a dispute arising out of a joint development arrangement through an AOP named Fortaleza Developers.
Case Title : THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. VERSUS M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 18972/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 198
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with Karnataka Bank Ltd's tax relief in a dispute over deduction for diminution in the value of its held-to-maturity (HTM) investments, which are securities that banks buy with the intention of holding until maturity rather than trading. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan dismissed the Revenue's special leave petition against the Karnataka High Court's August 2025 judgment that had upheld relief granted to the bank.
Case Title : PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number : Diary No. 74598-2025
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the Income Tax Department's challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling in favour of Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd. It declined to interfere with the judgment that had held AMP and brand-building expenses could not be disallowed in the absence of evidence showing an arrangement with the foreign associated enterprise. The top court declined to entertain the Revenue's plea on account of a 384-day delay in filing the appeal.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delay Condonation In Income Tax Dept's Appeal Against IFUNA
Case Title : M/S INDIAN FEDERATION OF UNITED NATION ASSOCIATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16497 16498/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 200
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court order that condoned the Income Tax Department's delay in filing and re-filing its appeal against Indian Federation of United Nations Association (IFUNA). The delay was 154 days in filing the appeal and 112 days in re-filing it. The Delhi High Court had on March 24, 2026 condoned the delay observing that though the delay was substantial and not properly explained, a “lenient view in the interest of justice” was required.
Supreme Court Seeks Attorney General's Intervention Over Long-Vacant Administrative Posts In ITAT
Case Title : PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 617/2026
The Supreme Court on May 26 expressed concern over longstanding vacancies in the administrative establishment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and sought the intervention of the Attorney General for India to ensure that the posts are filled expeditiously. The petition filed by Parveen Kumar Bansal, sought directions for immediate initiation and completion of the recruitment process for vacant posts including Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar, besides convening long-pending Departmental Promotion Committees for promotions to posts such as Senior Private Secretary and Private Secretary, which were stated to be pending since 2015 and 2017.
Supreme Court Grants IT Dept. Liberty To File HC Appeal In Google Ireland ₹116 Crore Tax Dispute
Case Title : THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) Versus GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED
Case Number : Diary No. 25127-2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 210
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain the Income Tax Department's challenge to a Karnataka High Court judgment dated June 3, 2025, which had quashed assessment orders passed against Google Ireland for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Court held that the Revenue must first pursue the available intra-court appeal before the High Court. A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the Revenue's Special Leave Petition, holding that an intra-court appeal against the Single Judge's order was available under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The Bench granted liberty to the Revenue to pursue that remedy.
Case Title : Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 684/2026 Diary No. 32032 / 2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking the introduction of a "creamy layer" mechanism for the income-tax exemption granted to Scheduled Tribes residing in specified areas and States under the Income Tax Act, 2025. The petitioner sought a direction to restrict the benefit to economically weaker tribals and exclude affluent beneficiaries. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana allowed petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay to withdraw the petition with the liberty to approach the Centre and the relevant Parliamentary Committee.
Case Title : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Radhika Roy
Case Number : Diary No. 34735/2026
The Income Tax Department has challenged a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings against NDTV founders Dr. Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy over interest-free loans received from RRPR Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The loans included about ₹21 crore advanced to Prannoy Roy and about ₹71 crore advanced to Radhika Roy. The Special Leave Petition is likely to be heard by a vacation bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Alok Aradhe on June 30, 2026.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court Stays Income Tax Revision, Cites No Definite Error In Reassessment Order
Case Title : Nitish Kumar Roy Versus Union Of India And Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1036 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 21
The Allahabad High Court has recently stayed proceedings pursuant to a show cause notice dated January 16, 2026 issued under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an individual taxpayer, observing that the tax authority had not formed a definite opinion that the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order was passed by a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Demonetisation Deposits From Cash In Hand Cannot Be Rejected Without Evidence: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I, v. Medharaj Techno Concept Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Person
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 4 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 31
The Allahabad High Court on 8 April held that where a taxpayer explains cash deposits during 2016 Indian demonetization as arising from cash in hand, the Assessing Officer cannot reject the explanation in the absence of any material to the contrary. A Bench comprising Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow against Medharaj Techno Concept Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the taxpayer.
No Rectification For Debatable Points Under Section 254(2) Of Income Tax Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Abusaad Ahmad Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle – 1 Lko
The Allahabad High Court on 6 May held that only mistakes apparent from the record can be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that debatable issues fall outside its scope. A Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary dismissed the appeal filed by Abusaad Ahmad, upholding the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's refusal to rectify its earlier order rejecting condonation of delay.
Andhra Pradesh HC
TEP-Based Income Tax Summons Can't Be Quashed Without Proof Of Mala Fide: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Koduru Picheswara Rao v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 841 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 28
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act on the basis of a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction in the absence of clear and convincing proof of mala fide, particularly where such allegations are raised belatedly and lack foundational pleadings or supporting material. A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli dismissed a writ petition filed by Koduru Picheswara Rao challenging summons issued by the Income Tax Department. The judges observed: In VNG Automotive Case “the impugned notice/summons under Section 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act cannot be said to be illegal or suffering from any infirmity, neither on the ground of malice nor on the ground of jurisdictional error.”
Bombay HC
Bogus Purchases: Bombay High Court To Examine If ITAT Can Limit Disallowance To Profit Margin
Case Title : The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-17 Vs Chandrakant L. Nishar
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1879 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 88
The Bombay High Court has recently admitted an Income Tax Appeal filed by the Department and will examine the correct approach to disallowance in cases involving bogus purchases. A Division Bench of Justice M S Karnik and Justice S.M. Modak, by an order dated February 5, 2026, admitted the Revenue's appeal against Chandrakant L. Nishar.
Limitation For TDS Default Orders Runs Quarter-Wise, Not Annually: Bombay High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Pune Vs Vodafone Cellular Ltd., Pune
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2438 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 116
The Bombay High Court has recently held that limitation for passing an order treating a person responsible for deducting tax at source as an “assessee in default” under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act must be computed quarter-wise based on the filing of each TDS statement, and not on an annual or cumulative basis. A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad on March 5, 2026 dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against Vodafone Cellular Ltd., Pune.
Case Title : The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 7587 of 2026]
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L)NO.7587 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 154
The Bombay High Court has held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause in a trust deed cannot be a ground to reject the application of a charitable trust for registration or renewal under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. “The statute does not enact that the mere absence of an irrevocability clause makes a trust revocable. On the contrary, it implies that a trust is irrevocable (which is the normal principle in all transfers) unless it is expressly made revocable. Silence in the deed implies irrevocability, not revocability," a division bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed.
Case Title : Benteler Automotive (China) Investment Ltd. v. ACIT & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11074 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 172
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant a nil withholding tax certificate under Section 197 to a China-based company, holding that services delivered through emails and video conferencing can be treated as rendered in India, while also declining to interfere as the core tax dispute is pending before appellate authorities. A bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar observed that “the rendition of these services, even if done virtually, equate to and is the same as a physical rendition of services in India. Hence, even assuming for the sake of argument that physical presence is required in India as sought to be contended by the Petitioner, the same is duly fulfilled."
Old Income Tax Demands Cannot Surface On Portal Without Serving Underlying Orders: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Capegemini Technology Services India Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Pune & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.16068 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 204
The Bombay High Court recently observed that old income tax demands could not be sustained where the underlying orders were not made available to the taxpayer, observing that such demands cannot be permitted to surface without proper disclosure. “Old matters and demands cannot be allowed to suddenly surface on the portal without the underlying orders being available and served. Consequently, the impugned demands cannot be sustained,” the court said. A Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that the writ petition was maintainable before it under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, noting that even a part of the cause of action arising within its territorial jurisdiction was sufficient to entertain the plea.
Developer Undertaking Risk And Execution Qualifies For Section 80-IA Deduction: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax Central-II v. Patel Engg. Ltd.
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2004 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 934 OF 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 205
The Bombay High Court on 11 March held that a taxpayer-company undertaking substantial development work, investment risk and technical execution cannot be treated as a mere works contractor and is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act for profits from infrastructure projects. A Bench comprising Justices M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak dismissed the Revenue's appeals against Patel Engineering Ltd., holding that the latter acted as a “developer” of infrastructure facilities in relation to the Koyna Project in Maharashtra and the Srisailam Project in Andhra Pradesh.
Bombay High Court Admits Limited 115JB Questions In ACC Case, Holds Settled Issues Not Appealable
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax- LTU Vs ACC Limited
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 206
The Bombay High Court on 16 March partly admitted an appeal filed by the Department against ACC Limited, holding that several issues raised by the Revenue were already covered by binding precedents and therefore did not give rise to any substantial question of law. A Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, however, admitted the appeal on four questions concerning computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They held: “The appeal is therefore admitted on questions (iv) (reframed), (vi), (ix) and (x). The appeal may be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No. 1658 of 2016 for the Assessment Year 2002-03.”
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-14, Mumbai Vs Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2479 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 209
Holding that reimbursements without any profit element do not attract TDS, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue against Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd. over cross-charges of Rs.14,51,77,000 paid to its sister concern-Pfizer Ltd. A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice S. M. Modak held, "The cross-charge paid by the Assessee-Respondent in terms of the cost-sharing agreement between the Assessee and M/s. Pfizer Ltd, did not have any income/profit component embedded with it and the said transaction was purely in the nature of reimbursement of expenditure incurred by M/s. Pfizer Ltd without any markup and therefore is not liable to TDS".
Case Title : GM Modular Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 1 and Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 210
The Bombay High Court on 30 March held that if a taxpayer made a deduction claim based on a binding High Court judgment, penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed subsequently, merely because the claim was later disallowed following a Supreme Court ruling. A Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that penalty is not automatic and does not arise where a taxpayer makes a bona fide claim based on the prevailing legal position.
Case Title : Mahaveer Pratishthan Vs The Commissioner of Exemption, Pune & Anr
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 8536 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 228
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order rejecting a charitable trust's request to excuse a delay in filing Form 10, holding that a lapse on the part of its Chartered Accountant could not be used to deny the trust tax exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. A Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla said, “the Petitioner Trust would suffer grave hardship if the delay is not condoned since the Petitioner Firm would be saddled with a huge tax liability for merely not filing Form 10 within time. The Petitioner-Trust, ought not to be foisted with such hardship because of the failure of the Petitioner's Chartered Accountant to fulfill the Petitioner Trust's compliance owing to reasons explained in the Chartered Accountant's Affidavit dated 24th March 2023. The Petitioner does not seem to gain any benefit from such a delay in filing its Form 10”.
Case Title : Rika Global Impex Limited Vs Union Of India And Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 2310 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 226
The Bombay High Court has recently flagged a persistent issue of the tax and customs department taking inconsistent stands on the same legal question before different High Courts, warning that such conduct leads to “judicial chaos” and needs correction through a uniform litigation policy. A bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that once a legal issue has reached finality against the department, it cannot be reopened elsewhere by taking a contrary stand.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Cap On Export Unit Tax Deduction Based On Sister Concern Profits
Case Title : Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.502 OF 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 235
The Bombay High Court has held that deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, which grants tax relief to export-oriented units on profits derived from exports, cannot be restricted merely by comparing the assessee's profit margins with those of a sister concern, in the absence of any material establishing an arrangement to inflate profits. “The capping of the profit share of the Assessee on which deduction under Section 10B could be claimed at 19% solely on the basis of the sister concern having earned/disclosed a profit of 19.03%, and holding the remainder to be taxable is arbitrary and does not stand the test of law."
Case Title : Foseco India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 1123 of 2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 252
The Bombay High Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether companies paying Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) can claim the benefit of lower tax rates under the India–UK tax treaty. The court was hearing appeals filed by Foseco India Ltd. challenging the denial of a refund of excess income tax paid. The issue, though arising in the context of the India–UK tax treaty, could also affect how similar provisions in other tax treaties are applied.
Bombay High Court Condones 430-Day Delay By Charitable Trust In Filing Declaration For Tax Exemption
Case Title : Bombay Prathana Samaj Vs The Union of India and Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 2039 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 267
The Bombay High Court has condoned a 430-day delay by Bombay Prathana Samaj, a charitable trust, in submitting a mandatory declaration required for claiming a tax exemption benefit, after finding that the trust had shown reasonable cause for the delay and would otherwise suffer genuine hardship. “The approach of the authority ought to be equitious, balancing and judicious and availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation,” the Court observed while referring to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO (E).
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai Versus Impact Foundation (India)
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 274
The Bombay High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against Impact Foundation (India), holding that revisionary proceedings under the Income Tax Act could not be sustained merely because the Commissioner believed the assessing officer should have conducted further enquiry. “The ITAT has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that the CIT (Exemptions), could not have initiated proceedings with a view to start de novo or a fishing inquiry in matters or orders which are already concluded, unless he was able to hold that the AO's view on the issue was unsustainable in law”
Case Title : Jigar Nemichand Sanghvi Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-19(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3261 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 276
The Bombay High Court has waived re-verification of amended pleadings in pending writ petitions challenging income tax reassessment notices, where assessees now seek to challenge the newly inserted Section 147A following the Supreme Court's ruling in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh v. Tej Pratap Singh. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe said re-verification need not be insisted upon, noting that a large number of similar reassessment matters were pending before the Court.
No TDS Payable On National Highways' Land Acquisition Arbitral Awards: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tukaram Kana Pawara (Deceased) Thr. Legal Heirs v. The Project Director Project Implementation Unit
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 914 of 2026 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 288
The Bombay High Court has held that deducting TDS from compensation awarded under arbitral awards in National Highways acquisition cases is impermissible, holding that forcing land losers to seek tax refunds would defeat the purpose of the land acquisition law's tax exemption. Referring to Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Court observed, "Any interpretation which requires deduction of tax at source and thereafter compels land losers to seek refund from the Income Tax Department would defeat the very purpose of the legislation. Such an approach, which forces farmers and land losers to move from one authority to another, is clearly contrary to the objects and reasons of the 2013 Act."
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Gemological Institute of America Inc.
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.945 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 332
The Bombay High Court has upheld relief granted to Gemological Institute of America Inc. (GIA US) in a dispute over royalty payments received from its Indian subsidiary. The court ruled that royalty amounts bona fide refunded pursuant to a CBDT-approved Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) could not be brought to tax in the hands of the US entity because the amounts did not ultimately belong to it. A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Income Tax Department. The appeals arose from assessment years between 2010-11 and 2017-18.
Case Title : Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.2959 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 336
On 16 June, the Bombay High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot reopen an assessment after four years when the taxpayer has already disclosed all material facts fully and truly and allowed a writ petition filed by Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited.Courts & Judiciary A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla set aside the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the order rejecting objections, and the consequential show cause notice and draft assessment order. The judges observed: “The Respondents have erred in equating the Petitioner as the 'enterprise' and, consequently, holding that it is owned by P&O Ports (Chennai) Ltd., Mauritius, which is not a company registered in India.”
Case Title : Accost Media LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai & Connected Appeal
Case Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 753 of 2025 with Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 25904 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 360
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), holding that the tribunal failed to adjudicate a taxpayer's jurisdictional objection alleging non-compliance with the mandatory assessment procedure. The court ruled that the issue went to the root of the matter and required adjudication by the tribunal. A division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed, "Even otherwise, on merits, the ITAT was required to consider and appreciate the documentary evidence as sought to be produced by the AppellantAssessee to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, and hence an opportunity to appreciate the aforesaid evidence in its entirety needs to be given to the Appellant-Assessee. We are therefore of the view that the impugned order of the ITAT dated 10th December 2024, hence is required to be set aside considering the jurisdictional issue raised by the Appellant-Assessee. The same goes to the root of the matter and has to be adjudicated."
Unit Owners, Not Society, Must Challenge Individual Property Tax Demands: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Madanmohan M. Kotia & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. connected with Kotia Nirman Co-operative Commercial Premises Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1840 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 362
The Bombay High Court has held that after the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) issued separate property tax demand notices to individual unit owners, any grievance regarding the assessment, penalty or sewerage tax became an individual dispute. The court held that the appropriate remedy thereafter is the statutory appeal under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. It dismissed writ petitions filed by a commercial premises society and some of its members after finding that MCGM had complied with an earlier direction to issue unit-wise property tax bills.
Calcutta HC
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITAT 95 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 41
The Calcutta High Court on 4 February held that in share capital assessments, income tax additions cannot be sustained on mere suspicion, when the investors are identifiable, the taxpayers and share subscriptions are backed by audited records, and clear there are clear banking trails for transactions. A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, against Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. (taxpayer) for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
Change Of Opinion Not Enough To Reopen Assessment: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata v. Russel Credit Limited
Case Number : ITAT 153 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 57
The Calcutta High Court on 20 February held that revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion on the nature of income. A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar, dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal setting aside revisionary proceedings against Russel Credit Limited for the Assessment Year 2018–19.
'Reimbursements' Fixed As Percentage Of Sales Are Contractual, Liable For TDS: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Deys Medical Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITAT 160 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 58
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the disallowance of expenses claimed by Deys Medical Private Limited (appellant) on account of alleged reimbursements paid to its group companies, holding that payments calculated as a percentage of sales constituted contractual consideration liable for tax deduction at source (TDS). The appeal arose from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, which had partially affirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowance of over Rs. 3.35 crore under the Income Tax Act for failure to deduct at source on payments made towards advertisement, sales promotion, marketing, handling, storage and collection services.
Case Title : Graphite India v. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Kolkata
Case Number : ITA 407 OF 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 99
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that deductions claimed on profits from captive power generation and export businesses must be computed independently and cannot be reduced against each other where the incomes arise from distinct sources. “The deduction granted under Section 80-IA cannot be reduced while computing profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC where the deductions arise from independent businesses,” the court held.
Delhi HC
Case Title : International Buddhist Confederation v. ITO
Case Number : ITA 18/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 117
The Delhi High Court has granted tax exemption to the International Buddhist Confederation, a Non-Governmental Organisation holding that tax authorities can't deny statutory benefits merely because of an inadvertent disclosure error made in the income tax return. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar also criticised the Revenue for taking advantage of the assessee's ignorance of his rights while passing the scrutiny assessment.
Delhi High Court Cuts TDS To 0.5% for UK Company Travelport, Sets Aside 1.6% Certificate
Case Title : Travelport International Operations Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7633/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 118
The Delhi High Court has granted partial relief to UK-based travel technology company Travelport International Operations Limited by setting aside a tax withholding certificate that required deduction of tax at 1.6%. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar directed the tax authorities to issue a fresh certificate providing deduction of tax at a reduced rate of 0.5%.
Case Title : Branch Metrics Inc v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle International Tax 1 1 2 New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17222/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 129
The Delhi High Court has flagged an administrative issue in the processing of applications under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, noting that a mismatch between the dates on orders and certificates issued for lower or nil tax deduction can create a misleading impression of delay. The court noted that while the certificate may be issued later, the order deciding the application often bears the date of filing of the application.
Wrong Attachment In Reassessment Email Does Not Invalidate Income Tax Notice: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Pawan Sachdeva v. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 19(3), Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1328/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 130
The Delhi High Court has held that an inadvertent attachment of another assessee's notice along with a reassessment email doesn't invalidate proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, so long as the substance of the communication clearly indicates that the statutory notice was intended for the concerned assessee. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed the writ petition filed by an assessee challenging the continuation of reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2012–13 on the ground that the email sent by the Assessing Officer had erroneously attached a notice pertaining to a third party.
Case Title : MHJ Metaltechs Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(1), Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 880/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 131
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer is not required to supply the entire material on record to an assessee at the stage of issuing a notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act ,1961 (re-assessment stage) observing that such a requirement would unnecessarily protract reassessment proceedings and enable assessees to manufacture defences.
A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed, “If it is held that every material has to be supplied to the assessee along with the notice under Section 148A(1) or Section 148A(b) (as applicable from time to time), it will result in protraction of the proceeding and giving assessee unwarranted opportunity to defend the transactions, which he had withheld while filing the return of income by way of getting the relevant material or defence manufactured.”
Case Title : The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Sperry Plast Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 90/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 132
The Delhi High Court has recently held that mere repayment of a loan within a short span of time, even within two days, does not by itself establish that the transaction was a sham or a bogus accommodation entry for the purposes of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed, “Simply because the loan has been paid within two days, it cannot be said with certitude that the loan was not a genuine loan and was only a paper entry. According to us, the other argument that no interest was paid to the creditor is also mis-placed because if the short-term loan for two-three days is taken, for whatever reason because of family or business relation or friendship, a creditor may advance the amount with lesser or even without interest.”
Case Title : Hitik Malhan v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1604/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 133
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked merely because a taxpayer disputes the correctness of facts or the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed, “A challenge to notice or proceedings can be considered normally, in case where the notice and proceedings are without jurisdiction. Simply because the petitioner thinks that the proceedings are not correct on facts and the material available with the Assessing Officer does not tally with the correct facts, the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked.”
Delhi High Court Quashes Transfer Pricing Order After TPO Failed To Share Agreements Relied Upon
Case Title : Lindstrom Services India Private Limited v. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing - 2(2)(2) New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1721/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 139
The Delhi High Court has recently has held that a Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is bound to furnish copies of agreements relied upon for benchmarking before finalising a transfer pricing adjustment. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed, “It is the settled position of law that any authority is bound to provide copies of the relied upon documents.”
Case Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-1, New Delhi v. M/S Mahagun (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 259/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 141
The Delhi High Court has dismissed three appeals filed by the Income Tax Department challenging orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that had granted relief to Mahagun developers in a long-running dispute over deduction of tax at source (TDS) on lease rent payments made to the NOIDA Authority.
A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar rejected the appeals after noting that the controversy was squarely covered by its earlier ruling in Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2017), which held that while TDS under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act is applicable on lease rent paid to Greater Noida Developmental Authority, the law would operate prospectively from the date of that judgment.
Case Title : GoDaddy.com LLC v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15023/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 144
The Delhi High Court has held that domain name registration fees received by GoDaddy is not chargeable to income tax in India, in terms of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar also criticised the Income Tax Department for refusing to grant a nil withholding tax certificate under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite binding judicial precedent.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-3, Delhi v. Jindal Saw Ltd.
C ase Number : ITA 689/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 155
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) holding that excise duty refund received by Jindal SAW Ltd. under the Kutch district incentive scheme is a capital receipt and not taxable as income. While dismissing the Income Tax Department's appeal, the Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar agreed with ITAT's view that the refund was granted under the Incentive Scheme 2001 for Economic Development of Kutch District, notified by the Government of Gujarat in the aftermath of the devastating 2001 earthquake, issued by the Government of Gujarat in Novermber 2011 after the earthquake in the Kutch area.
Reassessment Must Be Based On AO's Independent 'Reason To Believe,' Not Borrowed: Delhi High Court
Case Title : PR Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, New Delhi v. M/S NTPC Ltd
Case Number : ITA 113/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 157
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeals against NTPC Ltd., holding that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on the basis of an audit objection and that the statutory requirement of “reason to believe” must be from independent satisfaction of the Assessing Officer (AO). A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed, “the provision expressly used the language 'reason to believe' and the same has been interpreted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Court that 'reason to believe' must be of the AO himself and must be based on sound reasoning. The reason and satisfaction has to be that of the authority exercising jurisdiction and not borrowed.”
Case Title : Narayan Industries v. ACIT Circle 60(1) New Delhi
Case Number : ITA 489/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 159
The Delhi High Court has held that while duty drawback receipts are not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, the excise and customs duties paid by a taxpayer on raw materials are required to be deducted/subsumed from the duty drawback while recomputing income in the facts of the case. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar partly allowed the appeal filed by Narayan Industries against ITAT order denying its claim for deduction under Section 80-IC in respect of duty drawback income.
Case Title : Financial And Risk Organisation Limited v. The Income Tax Officer Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1) New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17641/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 160
The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised the Income Tax Department for relying on a long-set-aside assessment order to deny withholding tax relief, holding that such an approach amounts to a revenue-driven exercise contrary to law and judicial discipline. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar set aside the order passed under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which had directed deduction of tax at 15% instead of issuing a nil withholding certificate to a a UK-based company providing subscription-based financial information and software products.
Case Title : Sapphire Foods India Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Acit (Osd) Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6159/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 161
The Delhi High Court on Monday held that a completed income tax scrutiny assessment can't be reopened merely on the basis of an audit objection when no fresh tangible material has come to the Assessing Officer's notice. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar observed, “reopening the assessment on the basis of the objections of the Audit Party, shall in the above facts, amount to reviewing the assessment already made, as the relevant material was available with the assessing officer during that assessment.”
Case Title : Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 New Delhi v. HCL Infotech Pvt Ltd
Case Number : ITA 26/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 165
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the question whether delay in processing TDS refund is attributable to the assessee/taxpayer, for the purpose of denying interest under Section 244A(2) of the Income Tax Act, can be decided only by the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and not by the Assessing Officer (AO).
A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed, “Looking at the language used in sub-section (2) of Section 244A of the Act of 1961, we are of the firm opinion that in case, the Assessing Officer is of the view that the delay in processing the request for refund has been caused for reasons attributable to the assessee, it is „Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner‟ or „Principal Commissioner or Commissioner‟ who shall decide the question as to which period is to be excluded.”
Case Title : British Airways PLC v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (Int. Tax) 1(1)(2), New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 18856/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 178
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Income Tax Department issuing a 0.1% TDS certificate to British Airways under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar directed the authorities to issue a NIL TDS certificate, holding that income from airline operations is exempt under the India–UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Case Title : Refinitiv US LLC v. The Income Tax Officer Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1) New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17674/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 180
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a 15% tax withholding certificate issued to Refinitiv US LLC, a financial market data company under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar directed the tax authorities to issue a NIL TDS certificate in respect of income earned from its Matching Solutions services, holding that such income is not taxable in India under the India–US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Case Title : Nayati Healthcare And Research Ncr Private Limited v. Assessment Officer, Income Tax Department
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1554/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 181
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an ex-parte best judgment assessment assessing the Nayati Healthcare and Research NCR Private Limited's income at Rs. 232 crore, which was passed while the company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee, observing that at the relevant time the company was under CIRP and neither the suspended management nor the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was in a position to effectively represent the assessee before the Assessing Officer.
Delhi High Court Treats 5.25% Withholding Certificate Issued To EY As Nil
Case Title : Ernst & Young LLP v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax-1-2-2, New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2266/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 182
The Delhi High Court has recently treated a 5.25% withholding tax certificate issued to Ernst & Young LLP (EY) under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a NIL-rate certificate, holding that the tax officer acted contrary to an earlier binding order of the Court for the same assessment year. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar disposed of the writ petition filed by EY challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax which had directed withholding at 5.25%.
Income Tax | Delay in Filing Form 67 Not Ground to Deny Foreign Tax Credit: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Real Time Data Services Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 959/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 184
The Delhi High Court has held that a mere delay in filing Form 67, the prescribed declaration required to claim credit in India for taxes already paid abroad as required under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot be used to deny an assessee the substantive benefit of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC). A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Real Time Data Services Private Limited against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi.
Case Title : PGS Geophysical AS v. Income Tax Department, International Tax Circle 2(2)(2) New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9678/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 185
The Delhi High Court has quashed a 7% withholding tax certificate issued to Norwegian company PGS Geophysical under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, holding that seismic survey and data acquisition services rendered for offshore oil exploration cannot be characterised as “fees for technical services” (FTS) or royalty. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar allowed the writ petition filed by the Norwegian company, which had been engaged by ONGC for conducting seismic data acquisition and related services in connection with oil and gas exploration activities.
Delhi High Court Quashes 15% TDS Certificate On SaaS Under India–US DTAA, Orders 2% Certificate
Case Title : Beeline Com LLC v. Income Tax Officer Ward Int Tax 11 2 Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1867/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 194
The Delhi High Court has quashed a 15% tax deduction at source (TDS) certificate issued under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, in respect of payments made for Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) to a US-based company providing a web-based Vendor Management System (VMS) to Indian clients, including Infosys Ltd. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar held that the company had made out a prima facie arguable case on non-taxability under the India–US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Case Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax – Exemption v. Kush Innovative Foundation
Case Number : ITA 115/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 199
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot direct the grant of registration under Sections 12AB (which grants income tax exemption to charitable trusts) and 80G (which allows donors to claim tax deductions on donations) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without a proper inquiry into the genuineness of the charitable activities of the applicant trust. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar thus set aside an ITAT order which had directed the Department to grant registration to an assessee-trust, observing that registration under Section 12AB(1)(b), following provisional approval under Section 12AB(1)(c), is not automatic and requires statutory scrutiny by the competent authority.
Case Title : Mitsui Engineering & Ship.C v. The Asst. Director Of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6708/2005
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 205
The Delhi High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by a Japan-based maritime engineering and logistics company, seeking additional interest on a long-pending income tax refund, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar set aside a 2005 order passed by the Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), which had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act seeking additional interest under Section 244(1A) for Assessment Year 1988–89.
Case Title : Legal Initiative For Forest And Environment Trust (Life Trust) v. PCIT Central 2 Delhi And Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2342/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 218
The Delhi High Court has reprimanded the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for adjourning an appeal sine die after the matter had already been heard and reserved for judgment. For context, although Petitioner's appeal before the ITAT had been heard at length and reserved for orders on September 3, 2025, the Tribunal subsequently listed the matter again and, on January 19, 2026, adjourned it sine die.
Case Title : Lindstrom Services India Private Limited v. National Faceless Assessment Centre New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2723/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 223
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a draft assessment order passed by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) against Lindstrom Services India, after noting that it was issued without knowledge of the Court's order quashing transfer pricing, due to delay in uploading the High Court direction on its website. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar clarified that while the FAO could not be faulted personally, an assessment order passed in ignorance of a subsisting High Court order cannot be allowed to stand.
Delhi High Court Directs 2% Withholding Tax Certificate For US Software Firm DocuSign
Case Title : DocuSign Inc v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Int. Tax 1(2)(2), Civic Centre New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1334/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 225
The Delhi High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to issue a withholding tax certificate at the rate of 2% in favour of a US-based software company, after finding that the transactions prima-facie look to be not exigible to tax. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar passed the order while hearing DocuSign's writ petition challenging a certificate issued under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title : Gaurav Dalmia v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax Investigation Unit 2 (3) Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8352/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 226
The Delhi High Court has held that failure of tax authorities to obtain information about an assessee's assets in foreign jurisdictions cannot be used to keep a Look Out Circular (LOC) alive indefinitely, particularly when income tax proceedings have already concluded and no demand is outstanding against the assessee. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar thus allowed writ petitions filed by the assessees and observed, “If for one reason or the other, the respondents are not in a position to gather or elicit information from the foreign countries, the petitioners' rights cannot be kept suspended for an indefinite period. We are, therefore, of the view that the respondents' action of continuing with the lookout circular is violative of petitioners' fundamental rights.”
Case Title : Workday Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 731/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 231
The Delhi High Court has held that while issuing a certificate for lower deduction of tax at source under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the competent authority is required to record a prima facie view on the taxability of the receipts, and that such certificates cannot be issued mechanically or without reasons. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar made the observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by Ireland-based Workday Limited, which had challenged a withholding certificate directing deduction of tax at the rate of 10% on payments received from India.
Case Title : BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4.1., Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 19738/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 255
The Delhi High Court has held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be treated as time-barred when the delay occurred due to adjournments sought by the taxpayer during proceedings under Section 148A. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar dismissed writ petitions filed by two private companies challenging notices issued for Assessment Year (AY) 2017–18 on the ground that they were issued after the limitation period had expired.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of MakeMyTrip's NIL TDS Certificate, Calls Order Non-Speaking
Case Title : MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-75(1), Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11956/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 263
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an order of the Income Tax Department rejecting online travel company MakeMyTrip's application for a NIL or lower withholding tax certificate for FY 2025-26 (AY 2026-27) under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act. A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed that the impugned order was a non-speaking one and failed to provide reasons for the rejection. It observed, “...in the past, withholding certificates were issued at rates between 0.10% to 4% and the rejection of application has the effect of deducting normal rate of tax at source, which is clearly untenable, particularly when no reasons have been given in the impugned order for rejecting the application for NIL withholding certificate”.
Income Tax Assessment Order Against Amalgamated Boeing Entity Is Void: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Boeing India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 586/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 265
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an income tax assessment order passed in the name of a company that had ceased to exist following amalgamation is void ab initio and cannot be sustained in law. A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against Boeing India.
Case Title : Oravel Stays Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds)-2, Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2932/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 266
The Delhi High Court has quashed an order directing Oravel Stays Limited, the parent company of OYO, to deposit 20% of the outstanding tax demand as a condition for the grant of a stay during the pendency of its appeal. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax which had disposed of the company's stay application by directing payment of 20% of the total demand while keeping the remaining demand stayed.
Case Title : Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Delhi & Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15970/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 316
The Delhi High Court has granted partial relief to Huawei Telecommunications (India) in a batch of petitions challenging special audit directions and reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar partly allowed the petitions, setting aside the special audit directions and reassessment notices for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, while sustaining the proceedings for AY 2015-16.
Case Title : Delhi Sports And Entertainment Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3152/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 317
The Delhi High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings against a Delhi-based sports events company, holding that the notice issued on July 30, 2022 was time-barred and that reopening the case on issues already scrutinized amounted to a mere change of opinion, rendering the entire exercise invalid. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar allowed the writ petition filed by the company, setting aside the reassessment notice, subsequent orders, and the ex-parte assessment order raising a demand of over Rs. 96 crore.
Case Title : APS Hydro Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9132/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 336
The Delhi High Court has recently pulled up the Income Tax Department for waking up after nine years to pursue tax dues, calling it “difficult nay impossible” to believe such prolonged inaction, and quashed the notice issued to APS Hydro Private Limited. A division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar was dealing with a writ petition against a notice dated February 16, 2022, and a follow-up communication issued on May 12, 2022, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which treated the taxpayer as being in default under the Income Tax Act.
Case Title : VNG Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA 795/2004 & ITA 796/2004
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 368
The Delhi High Court has recently held that interest earned by VNG Automotive Pvt. Ltd. on funds earmarked for setting up its manufacturing unit cannot be taxed as “income from other sources”, finding that the funds were not surplus but were directly linked to project obligations. The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar said: “We find that the funds in the present case were not lying as surplus but the same were earmarked to facilitate the balance payment for plant and machinery etc. for which advances were made by the assessee. The funds are inextricably linked to the setting up of the business of the assessee, and as such, would be covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bokaro Steel Ltd (supra), and not Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra)."
Case Title : Abhinav Jain v. ITO
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2638/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 372
The Delhi High Court has upheld reassessment proceedings against an taxpayer for Assessment Year 2018–19, holding that the defect of granting less than seven days to respond to a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act stood cured by a corrigendum issued within the limitation period. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar rejected the petitioner's challenge that the notice was invalid for providing only six days to respond, contrary to the statutory requirement of “not less than seven days”.
Case Title : VRG Electronics Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi 7 & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2625/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 374
The Delhi High Court has held that a beneficial circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) allowing delay condonation in cases of “genuine hardship” cannot be restricted to specific assessment years and must be applied uniformly to all bona fide cases. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by VRG Electronics Pvt. Ltd., challenging the rejection of its application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10IC for Assessment Year 2023–24.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II v. M/s Globe Capital Market Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 364/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 379
The Delhi High Court has upheld the deletion of a Rs 16.33 crore addition against Globe Capital Market Ltd., holding that a company's buyback of its own shares does not amount to acquisition of “property” and Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act has no application to such transactions. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, affirming the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, which had upheld relief granted to the assessee, a company engaged in share broking and trade clearing.
Case Title : Supreme Build-Cap Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle (5), Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4543/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 392
The Delhi High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable even after completion of assessment proceedings, where the impugned action is ex facie without jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed that “simply because the proceedings have culminated into an assessment order, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer the agony of an order which is without jurisdiction on the face of it, until the appellate authority does a formal act of annulling it.”
Taxpayer Liable Only For Own Investment Share, Not Spouse's Contribution: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Puneet Kanodia v. National Faceless Assessment Centre New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4327/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 405
The Delhi High Court on 17 April 2026 held that a taxpayer can only be required to explain his own share of investment and cannot be saddled with tax liability for the contribution of a co-owner, including a spouse, where joint ownership and independent sources of funds are evident. A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar set aside the assessment order passed under Sections 143(3) read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the matter for reconsideration, in a case where an addition of Rs. 2.85 crore had been made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Third-Party Reassessment Despite Interim Relief To Searched Entity
Case Title : Hari Bhoomi Communications Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1) & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3703/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 412
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Hari Bhoomi Communications Private Limited, holding that reassessment proceedings initiated against it on the basis of material recovered during a search at another entity's premises are not rendered void by a subsequent interim order passed in favour of the searched entity. A division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar refused to interfere with an assessment order dated March 25, 2026, passed against the company pursuant to a notice issued on March 31, 2025 under the second explanation to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The notice had been triggered by material recovered during a search conducted at the premises of Kuantum Papers Limited.
Failure To Claim Tax Relief Doesn't Change Nature Of Salary Arrears: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Vishwajeet Souryan v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 134/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 416
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the non-claim of relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not determine the nature of income and cannot be taken to mean that such income is not arrears. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan was dealing with a petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had closed contempt proceedings arising from a dispute over EWS-based IAS allocation.
Case Title : Aabid Ali Khan v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA 262/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 421
The Delhi High Court has reduced the addition to the taxpayers' income from Rs.80.42 lakh to Rs.68.47 lakh in a cash seizure case, holding that the Assessing Officer could not rely on the assessee's claim of having “borrowed/collected” Rs.80.42 lakh from 17 persons after rejecting that very explanation, terming such an approach “perverse” in the absence of any independent material. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar partly allowed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reducing the addition to the amount of cash actually recovered.
Delhi High Court Says 100% Shareholding Not Enough To Tax Shareholders For Company's Income
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi v. Pradeep Wig Neera Wig
Case Number : ITA 681/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 433
The Delhi High Court has held that shareholders, even if holding all the shares of a company, are only owners of the shares and not of the company's assets, and therefore the company's income cannot be taxed in their hands. “Legally speaking, the respondents being shareholders of the company, even if holding all the shares (100%), are only owners of the shares of the company and not the owners of the property as such and similarly the income which that company has earned cannot ipso-facto be treated to be an income of the assessees, who are residents of India.”
ITAT Can't Grant Tax Benefits To Charitable Institution Without Proper Inquiry Delhi HC
Case Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption v. Sukoon SP Foundation
Case Number : ITA 71/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 444
The Delhi High Court has held that a tax appellate tribunal cannot directly grant tax exemption benefits to a charitable trust without first ensuring that a proper inquiry into its activities has been carried out. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar passed the ruling while setting aside an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had directed the grant of registration and approval to Sukoon SP Foundation, a charitable trust.
Case Title : Kapil Agarwal v. CPIO
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8481/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 448
The Delhi High Court has held that a husband's income tax returns constitute “personal information” and are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless a larger public interest justifies such disclosure. The court set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing their disclosure to his wife in a matrimonial dispute. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that income-related details sought by the wife did not fall within the “larger public interest” exception and that disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone Delay In Late Filing To Opt Lower Corporate Tax Regime
Case Title : Mentaura Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4449/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 451
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to condone delay by a company in opting for a concessional corporate tax regime, holding that its application filed beyond the three-year limit prescribed under a CBDT circular was not maintainable. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed the writ petition filed by a company challenging the rejection of its application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC for Assessment Year 2020–21.
Case Title : Vijender Pal Jain L/H Late Rishi Raman Jain v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 28(1) Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12617/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 515
The Delhi High Court has held that the father of a deceased assessee can be treated as a “legal representative” under the Income Tax Act even if he is not a Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Amit Mahajan observed, “A person need not be a legal heir, much less a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act to fall within this definition. The test is not one of inheritance; it is one of representation vis-à-vis the estate of the deceased.”
Case Title : Sanjeev Kumar Bidhuri v. National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3934/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 517
The Delhi High Court has quashed an income tax assessment order and demand notice after finding that a taxpayer was denied a fair hearing. The tax department failed to communicate whether his adjournment request had been accepted or rejected. It also passed the order without considering the reply he had filed. A Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar observed, “It is clear that the petitioner's right of being heard has been infracted and the violation of petitioner's Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India is apparent.”
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 v. M/S. American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 656/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 520
The Delhi High Court has held that a company with a vastly different turnover and scale of operations may not be a proper comparable for transfer pricing analysis. A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed that huge differences between the tested entity and the comparable would necessarily require the exclusion of the comparable. The court made the observation while dealing with an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case concerning American Express India (assessee).
Company's Car, Telephone Costs Not 'Personal' Despite Being Separate Legal Entity: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Raunaq International Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax I N
Case Number : ITA 113/2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 523
The Delhi High Court has held that telephone and car expenses incurred by a company cannot be disallowed as “personal” expenses merely because a company is treated as a separate legal person. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar allowed the company's appeal and set aside an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had upheld disallowance of one-sixth of the company's telephone and car expenses on the ground of possible personal use.
'Left No Stone Unturned To Harass': Delhi HC On IT Dept's Delay In Releasing KVPs, IVPs
Case Title : Pradeep Misra v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2470/2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 524
The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Income Tax Department for delaying the release of seized Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) and Indira Vikas Patras (IVPs) even after the assessee deposited the settlement amount, observing that the authorities had “left no stone unturned to harass” the petitioner. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Om Prakash Shukla directed the tax authorities to compensate the petitioners for loss of interest caused due to wrongful retention of the instruments.
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, New Delhi v. Ernst And Young U.S. LLP
Case Number : ITA 423/2025 (and batch)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 627
The Delhi High Court on thursday held that payments made by Indian entities to a foreign company for the secondment of employees can be taxed as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) if the arrangement satisfies the "make available" test by transferring technical knowledge, skill, or experience to the Indian entity. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar allowed appeals filed by the Revenue against Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, holding that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in concluding that the secondment arrangement did not satisfy the "make available" requirement under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US DTAA.
Case Title : Sunil Bhalla v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 13 (1) New Delhi And Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15337/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 636
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that while computing the limitation period for reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, the time granted to an assessee to respond to a notice issued under Section 148A(b) must be excluded in terms of the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149. Applying this principle, the Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar dismissed a writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings as time-barred, holding that the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 were issued well within the prescribed limitation period.
Case Title : Shailendra Nath Rai v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 60 (1) New Delhi And Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15305/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 637
The Delhi High Court has held that a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act does not become invalid merely because the minimum seven-day period granted to an assessee for filing a reply extends beyond the limitation period prescribed for issuance of reassessment notices. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed that Parliament consciously provided for exclusion of the time granted to an assessee for filing a reply while computing limitation under Section 149, and that any contrary interpretation would defeat the legislative scheme.
Gauhati HC
In Faceless Assessment, Income Tax Revision Cannot Be Decided Without Inquiry: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Jennyfar Lalzarliani Hrahsel v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 27/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 13
The Gauhati High Court has held that the revisional authority cannot dispose of revision proceedings in a mechanical manner under the Income Tax Act (Section 264), which allows a taxpayer to seek revision of an order through a faceless process without making, or causing, an enquiry. This is especially so where the assessee claims difficulty in producing voluminous records and seeks verification at the place of business. The court referred to an earlier Division Bench ruling that held that revision under the Income Tax Act (Section 264) is an alternative remedy to appeal.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Solvay Specialities India Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No.7905 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 13
The Gujarat High Court has recently set aside a tax deduction at source order against Solvay Specialities India, holding that the Income Tax Department failed to apply the mandatory “make available” test under the India–Singapore tax treaty. Under this test, tax authorities are required to first determine whether the foreign service provider actually passed on any technical knowledge, skill, or know-how in a way that allows the Indian company to use it independently in the future.
Ten-Year Block Under Section 153A Includes Search Year: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Bankim Chandramanishanker Joshi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1254 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 22
The Gujarat High Court on 23 February held that tax authorities must include the search year when computing the ten-year block for reopening assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed a notice issued in 2025 for Assessment Year 2014-2015, as it fell outside the ten-year period, with the tenth year being Assessment Year 2015-16.
Case Title : Gopal Bhachabhai Jatiya vs. ITO Ward-1, Gandhidham
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 15184 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 25
The Gujarat High Court has recently quashed reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act against an individual taxpayer after noting that the Assessing Officer failed to consider that two sale deeds had been cancelled on account of fraud and that the sale consideration had been reversed. A bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi recorded that the sale deeds dated August 28 and 29, 2018, were subsequently cancelled by a competent authority because they had been executed by fraudulent persons.
DTVSV Scheme 2024 Inapplicable To Reassessments Arising From Search Proceedings: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3627 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 29
The Gujarat High Court on 18 February held that taxpayers whose reassessment proceedings arise from incriminating material discovered during search operations under Sections 132 or 132A of the Income Tax Act are not eligible to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed a batch of writ petitions led by Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, which challenged the rejection of their applications under the scheme.
Case Title : Gulbrandsen Pvt. Ltd. v. DY. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15851 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 31
The Gujarat High Court on 24 February ruled that the Revenue cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on the same material that was already scrutinised in the original proceedings, which later lapsed due to the Assessing Officer's failure to meet the statutory deadlines. The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that reopening an assessment in such circumstances is an impermissible attempt to “camouflage” administrative remissness and indirectly extend the period of limitation for finalising an assessment.
Case Title : Jay Pareshbhai Soni v. Income Tax Officer Ward & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2902 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 33
The Gujarat High Court has set aside an order transferring an assessee's income-tax reassessment case from Ahmedabad to Rajkot after finding that the transfer was made without granting the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing as required under the Income Tax Act. The division bench of Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that in the present case the transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act could not be sustained since it had been effected without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which is mandatory under the provision.
CIT Cannot Reject Delay Condonation Plea On Grounds Beyond Scope of Application: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Shri Jain Dehrasar Upasraya Ane Sadharan v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9992 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 34
The Gujarat High Court on 9 March held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, the Authority cannot examine issues beyond the scope of the delay condonation request. A Division Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) wrongly rejected Shri Jain Dehrasar Upasraya Ane Sadharan's delay condonation plea for filing Form 10B by questioning its registration status instead of examining the explanation for the delay.
Case Title : Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Vadodara
Case Number : R/TAX APPEAL NO.640 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 36
The Gujarat High Court has held that money received from transferring a self-generated trademark before 2002 cannot be taxed as capital gains, as the law allowing such taxation came into force only later. The Court noted that Section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act was amended with effect from April 1, 2002, to allow taxation of transfers of trademarks by treating their cost of acquisition as nil, and the amendment cannot apply to earlier transactions.
Search Year Must Be Included While Computing 10-Year Block For Reassessment: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Dilipbhai Prabhudas Patel v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2403 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 38
The Gujarat High Court on 9 March, held that while computing the extended ten-year block period for reassessment in search cases, the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted (search assessment year) must be included in the computation. The Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed the notice issued to Dilipbhai Prabhudas Patel (petitioner) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Bench held: "The statutory language necessarily results in inclusion of the search assessment year within the ten-year reckoning. Any interpretation that applies the six-year exclusion model, if made applicable to the ten-year block, would defeat the legislative scheme and render material words redundant. Accordingly, while computing the extended ten-year period under Explanation 1 to Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act, the assessment year relevant to the previous year of search is to be included in the reckoning."
Case Title : Herald Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11722 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 43
The Gujarat High Court on 16 March, held that a bona fide delay of 53 days in filing Form 10-IC cannot deprive an eligible taxpayer of concessional tax benefits. The expression “genuine hardship” under the Income Tax Act must be given a liberal, justice-oriented interpretation. Form 10-IC is a declaration filed by a company to opt for the concessional corporate tax rate under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act.
A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi allowed Herald Global Ventures Private Limited to avail benefits under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act. The judges held: "……if the delay in question is not condoned, the petitioner will have to pay substantial tax calculated as per 'normal rate of tax' despite the fact that the petitioner is otherwise eligible for claiming benefit under section 115BAA of the Act i.e. 'tax rate being 22%'. This will result into 'financial hardship' to the petitioner which is a 'genuine hardship'. Thus, by condoning delay, the genuine hardship caused to the petitioner could have been avoided."
Case Title : RAR Properties v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2148 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 44
The Gujarat High Court has held that a taxpayer's delay in filing its income tax return due to a bona fide misunderstanding of audit requirements under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, resulting in denial of a tax deduction under Section 80-IAB for Special Economic Zone developers, constitutes “genuine hardship” warranting condonation. The case arose from the petitioner firm's failure to file its return of income for Assessment Year 2023–24 within the prescribed due date of 31 July 2023. The delay of 87 days was attributed to incorrect professional advice that the firm was required to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title : Purvibhavin Shah v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3845 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 48
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that while computing the extended ten-year period for reopening income tax assessments following a search, the assessment year in which the search was conducted must be included in the reckoning. The bench stated that "..... the assessment year relevant to the previous year of search becomes the reference year and the ten-year period is counted from the end of that assessment year. This necessarily includes the search assessment year within the ten-year framework and resultantly, the search year becomes the first year in the reckoning of the ten-year block."
Case Title : Chartered Accountants Association, Surat (CAAS) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16428 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 52
The Gujarat High Court recently directed the Union government to file an affidavit in a writ petition filed by the Chartered Accountants Association, Surat, and others, alleging continued non-compliance with its 2015 directions on the timely availability of income tax return e-filing utilities. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi noted that despite its earlier ruling in All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants v. CBDT, the respondent Department had not followed directions requiring that ITR forms and utilities be made available at the start of the assessment year (April 1).
Gujarat High Court Quashes Move To Reopen Income Tax Assessment Over Vague Third-Party Material
Case Title : Bhavnaben Darshanbhai Patel v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 780 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 54
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment notices against a taxpayer, ruling that the Income Tax Department cannot reopen completed assessments based on vague third-party documents that have no clear link to the person concerned. The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi in a batch of petitions led by Bhavnaben Darshanbhai Patel, challenging reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2020–21.
Case Title : Raivat Kalpeshbhai Shah v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3868 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 55
The Gujarat High Court has set aside a tax reassessment notice issued in a land sale case, holding that the Income Tax Department cannot rely on the same evidence to take opposite positions against the buyer and the seller. The Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi was dealing with a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2020–21.
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax Gandhinagar v. Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd.
Case Number : R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1973 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 57
The Gujarat High Court on 9 April, held that a taxpayer can file a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only when it discovers a bona fide omission or wrong statement in the original return filed under Section 139(1). The provision cannot be used to make deliberate or afterthought changes. The Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi emphasised that a valid revised return replaces the original return for all purposes under the Act, but only when it reflects genuine correction of errors and not a strategic revision of claims.
Gujarat HC Quashes Reassessment, Holds No Escaped Income Exists Where MAT Liability Is Unchanged
Case Title : Pandesara Infrastructure Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Surat
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 11005 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 68
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against Pandesara Infrastructure Limited for Assessment Year 2020-21. The court found that the proposed recomputation of depreciation would not result in any income chargeable to tax escaping assessment. It also noted that the company's liability under the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime would remain unchanged. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the writ petition challenging a notice issued on 28 June 2025. The petition also questioned the consequential order passed on the same date.
High-Value Bank Transactions Alone Cannot Justify Reassessment: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : O3 Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application Nos. 14057 and 14096 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)70
The Gujarat High Court recently held that high-value transactions reflected in bank accounts, without any material showing that income had escaped assessment, cannot by themselves justify reopening an assessment. The court consequently quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against O3 Developers Pvt. Ltd. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati set aside reassessment notices and consequential orders issued against the company for AY 2019-20 and AY 2021-22. “Merely, because there are high value transactions in the bank accounts of the petitioner, the same would not ipso facto mean that there is escapement of income chargeable to tax without there being any iota of evidence.”
Case Title : Vasundhara Builders and Developers v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application Nos. 16029 and 16087 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)71
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that reassessment proceedings based on survey material are not excluded from the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The court observed that the revenue cannot import a restriction that does not appear in the statute. The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, was introduced by the Centre to reduce pending income-tax litigation by allowing eligible taxpayers to settle disputes and bring appeals to an end.
Gujarat High Court Quashes Reassessment After Escaped Income Falls Below ₹50 Lakh
Case Title : Touch Comm Tech Private Limited v. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 16693 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)72
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings against Touch Comm Tech Private Limited after finding that the alleged escaped income fell below ₹50 lakh, making the reopening time-barred. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the company's writ petition and set aside the order passed under Section 148A(d) along with the consequential reassessment notice. “Thus, it appears that in order to bring the assessment within the ambit of limitation, the entire amount of 70,00,000/- has been determined by the Assessing officer,” the court observed.
Case Title : Ammann India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 7854 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)80
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against road construction equipment maker Ammann India Private Limited. It held that the Revenue reopened the assessment by treating the company's scientifically determined warranty provision as an unascertained liability without considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS), or the material already available with the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : ABC v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 12632 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)81
The Gujarat High Court has recently refused to interfere with the Central Board of Direct Taxes' (CBDT) decision fixing the reward payable to an informant under the 2007 Reward Guidelines. It held that the reward is an ex gratia payment and that the court cannot re-evaluate the methodology adopted by the Full Board unless its determination suffers from manifest illegality or patent arbitrariness. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by a real estate consultant. He had sought enhancement of the reward granted for information relating to tax evasion by the Sheladia Group.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
J&K&L High Court Upholds Income Tax Addition After Taxpayer Gave Inflated Stock Statement To Bank
Case Title : Ajay Food Products vs Income Tax Officer and others, 2026
Case Number : ITA No. 16/2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 8
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday upheld an addition to taxable income made on the basis of a stock statement furnished by a taxpayer to a bank while availing a cash credit facility, holding that the tax authorities were justified in relying on the declaration where discrepancies with the books of account remained unexplained. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed an appeal filed by Ajay Food Products challenging an addition made by the Income Tax Department on the basis of stock statements submitted to the bank.
Case Title : Vidya Sagar Sharma vs Union of India, 2026
Case Number : WP(C) No. 536/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 10
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, failure to comply with the conditions of the scheme results in automatic revival of all proceedings withdrawn earlier, irrespective of whether they were initiated by the assessee or the Income Tax Department. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal ruled that Section 4(6) of the act applies to “all proceedings and claims” without distinction, and therefore revival operates by law even in respect of revision petitions filed by the assessee.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kamraz Rural Bank
Case Number : ITA 2/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 13
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently held that an appellate authority under the Income Tax law cannot allow a taxpayer to file fresh evidence at the appeal stage without first passing a reasoned order and giving the tax officer a fair chance to respond. A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar said, “We are also of the clear view that the opportunity to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage could not be granted by the First Appellate Authority under the Act without passing a speaking order indicating clearly that the conditions laid down in Clause 1 of Rule 46A are met."
Karnataka HC
Case Title : Bhoruka Steel and Services Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 17592 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 13
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the expiry of the statutorily surviving period of limitation under the Income Tax Act are invalid. This remains so even where the revenue seeks to sustain the reassessment notice on the basis of the Supreme Court's directions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal.
Tax Authority Cannot Deny Interest Waiver Through A Cryptic Order: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Kanhaiyalal Dudheria v. The Chief Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 104240 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 17
The Karnataka High Court recently held that a tax authority cannot deny a taxpayer's request for interest waiver through a cryptic order. It must pass a reasoned, speaking order after objectively examining whether the income could have been anticipated at the relevant time. A Bench of Justice K.S. Hemalekha, partly allowed a writ petition filed by Kanhaiyalal Dudheria (petitioner) and partially set aside an order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, that allowed waiver of the second and third advance tax instalments.
Case Title : United Spirits Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.18439 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 45
Rejecting the income tax department's attempt to treat a Tribunal remand as a fresh transfer pricing reference to extend limitation, the Karnataka High Court has held that no order can be passed once the statutory time limit expires. A single-judge bench of Justice Nagaprasanna emphasised that there is a “world of difference” between a reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(1) and a remand of the matter by the Tribunal, rejecting the Revenue's attempt to treat both as triggering a fresh limitation period.
Search Under IT Act Is Person-Centric; Premises Don't Decide 'Searched Person': Karnataka High Court
Case Title : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sri C.R. Ram Mohan Raju
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL No. 382 OF 2026 (T-IT)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 55
Holding that a “searched person” under the Income Tax Act is determined by the person against whom statutory satisfaction is recorded and not by whose premises are searched, the Karnataka High Court on Friday ruled that a taxpayer cannot be treated as a searched person merely because a search was conducted at his premises. The ruling came in a case where the tax department initiated proceedings against the taxpayer under Section 153C based on documents seized during a search conducted at his premises.
Kerala HC
BSNL VRS Retirees Absorbed From DoT Entitled To Leave Encashment Tax Exemption: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Sanchar Nigam Pensioners Welfare Association v. Union of India
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 16360 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 35
The Kerala High Court has held that retired BSNL employees who were originally absorbed from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) are entitled to full income-tax exemption on leave encashment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The writ petition was filed by the Sanchar Nigam Pensioners' Welfare Association and two retired officers of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, who had opted for the BSNL voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019.
Taxpayer Cannot Escape Prosecution By Filing Revised Returns Post-Search: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Shammem Majeed v. State of Kerala
Case Number : CRL.MC NO. 8014 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 41
The Kerala High Court on 20 February held that filing revised income tax returns after a search and seizure operation does not absolve a taxpayer from criminal prosecution for wilful tax evasion, and that such revised returns cannot be used as a shield against offences punishable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Justice G. Girish, dismissed a batch of petitions filed by a medical practitioner challenging prosecutions pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam.
Case Title : Dr. P.H. Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala
Case Number : CRL.MC NO. 7884 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 43
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that criminal prosecutions for alleged tax evasion under the Income Tax Act do not automatically fail merely because penalty proceedings were set aside on technical grounds, and that such prosecutions can validly continue where allegations disclose wilful and deliberate concealment of income. The ruling was delivered by Justice G. Girish while dismissing a batch of criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by Dr. P.H. Abdul Majeed, who had sought the quashing of multiple criminal complaints initiated by the Income Tax Department for offences under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title : The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd.
Case Number : ITA NO. 71 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 58
The Kerala High Court on 11 March, held that unrealised gains arising from mark-to-market valuation of forward contracts are not taxable as income unless actually realised. The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. The judges held: “It is doubtless that, in a 'mark-to-market' forward commodities contract, the gains and losses fluctuate until the instrument matures on the period of expiry. In one year it is likely that there would be losses, which would perhaps transmute to be profits in the next year; and it continues in that cycle until the maturity happens.”
Case Title : The Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 14230 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 73
The Kerala High Court, on 8 April, held that approval granted by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax satisfies the statutory requirement under Section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act for imposing penalties. It clarified that the term “Joint Commissioner” includes an Additional Commissioner under Section 2(28C) of the Act. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Service Cooperative Bank Limited, holding that the challenge failed on the limited question of the validity of approval, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the penalty proceedings, and left the petitioner free to pursue statutory remedies.
Kerala HC Directs CIT To Reconsider Registration Of Trust From 2021, Examines CBDT Circular 7/2024
Case Title : Atma Bodhodaya Sangham Sree Subhananda Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)
Case Number : ITA No. 120 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 93
On 4 June, the Kerala High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to reconsider a Atma Bodhodaya Sangham Sree Subhananda Trust's claim for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act with effect from 1 April 2021, after examining the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 on rectification of defective exemption applications. A Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji set aside the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), which had denied retrospective registration to the Trust, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to complete the exercise within three months.
Case Title : Noel Villas and Apartments v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 4122 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 112
The Kerala High Court has held that tax authorities conducting faceless assessments are not required to issue a draft assessment order before finalising proceedings in the case of ordinary assessees. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., while dismissing writ petitions filed by a partnership firm engaged in the real estate business, observed that the requirement applies only to "eligible assessees" specifically defined under the Income Tax Act. "The requirement of issuing a draft assessment order before finalizing the proceedings is necessitated only in the case of an 'eligible assessee' as defined under Section 144(C)(15)(b) of the Act," the court held.
Madras HC
Transfer Pricing Reference During Extended Reassessment Period Invalid: Madras High Court
Case Title : Eaton Power Quality Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.No.15393 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 38
The Madras High Court held that a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made during the extended period available for completion of reassessment is invalid, rendering the proceedings time-barred. Justice C. Saravanan delivered the judgment while allowing a writ petition filed by Eaton Power Quality Private Limited which challenged the order passed by the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act by which the arm's length price of corporate service fees was determined at nil and a downward adjustment was proposed.
Case Title : C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others
Case Number : WP No. 21006 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a plea by actor-turned-politician Vijay challenging a Rs 1.5 crore penalty imposed on him by the Income Tax Department in connection with alleged undisclosed income of Rs 15 crore for the financial year 2015–16. The judgment was pronounced by a single judge, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, after reserving the same on January 23, 2026.
Case Title : Motilal Jain Mahaveer Jain v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.No.23246 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 61
The Madras High Court has clarified that a non-resident individual falls within the amended definition of an “eligible assessee” under the Income Tax Act, and therefore reassessment proceedings routed through the Dispute Resolution Panel cannot be challenged on that ground. The court dismissed a writ petition filed by individual taxpayers Motilal Jain and Mahaveer Jain and upheld a reassessment order issued under the Income Tax Act following directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel.
Case Title : Verizon Data Services India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.No18377 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 68
The Madras High Court has recently quashed penalty proceedings against Verizon Data Services India Pvt Ltd, holding that a transfer pricing adjustment based on estimation of arm's length price cannot by itself constitute “misreporting of income” under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. A single-bench of Justice C. Saravanan, while quashing the penalty order and rejection of its immunity application against Verizon observed, "The entire basis for initiation of penalty proceedings is the transfer pricing adjustment proposed in the draft assessment order. Such adjustment, by its very nature, involves estimation and determination of arm's length price and cannot, in law, be equated with either concealment or misrepresentation so as to attract the Clause (a) to Sub Section (9) to Section 270A."
No Penalty For Erroneous Claim Based On Bona Fide Interpretation Of Tax Treaty: Madras High Court
Case Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Indian Overseas Bank
Case Number : TCA Nos. 64 and 65 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 71
The Madras High Court on 5 February held that an erroneous claim of double taxation relief by itself cannot lead to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the taxpayer has fully disclosed the relevant income and the claim arises from a bona fide interpretation of law. A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineini Sudheer Kumar heard appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against Indian Overseas Bank challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), which had deleted the penalty imposed on the bank for the assessment years 2006–07 and 2007–08.
Penalty Order Is In Limitation If Issued Within Six Months Of Appellate Order: Madras High Court
Case Title : Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WP No. 21006 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 70
The Madras High Court on 6 February held that when penalty proceedings arise from assessment orders and the assessment is challenged on appeal, the limitation period for issuing a penalty can be computed from the appellate order. A penalty issued within the prescribed period after the appellate decision is therefore not time-barred. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy upheld a penalty imposed on actor Joseph Vijay under the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing that the penalty order dated 30 June 2022 was issued within the statutory period under Section 275(1)(a). The Court noted that appellate proceedings effectively reset the clock for penalty orders arising from assessments.
Vehicle Possession And Document Transfer Concludes A Sale For Capital Gains Tax: Madras High Court
Case Title : Dr. Arvind Kumar R Shaw v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P.No.14256 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 73
The Madras High Court has held that delivery of a vehicle along with its original documents may constitute a completed sale for income-tax purposes, even if the registration certificate is not formally transferred in the buyer's name. A Bench comprising Justice C. Saravanan dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr. Arvind Kumar R. Shaw (the petitioner), upholding the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department treating the sale of his Rolls‑Royce as a short-term capital gains transaction for the assessment year 2018–19.
Madras High Court Dismisses Taxpayer Appeal, Says Books Were Rejected Before DVO Reference
Case Title : M. Ravindran v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number : T.C.A.No.201 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 78
The Madras High Court has held that the Assessing Officer was justified in referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer after examining the books of accounts and finding inconsistencies in them, and that the taxpayer could not rely on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sargam Cinema to argue that the reference to the Valuation Officer was invalid. The Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed dismissed the tax appeal filed by taxpayer M. Ravindran and affirmed the findings recorded by the tax authorities as well as the tribunal.
Case Title : M/s. Wheels India Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : T.C.A.No.104 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 87
The Madras High Court on 2 March held that a taxpayer is entitled to claim the balance 50% of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year where new plant and machinery are put to use for less than 180 days in the year of acquisition. A Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed allowed an appeal filed by Wheels India Limited against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2007–08, which had upheld the partial disallowance of the company's claim for additional depreciation.
Case Title : Gautham Vasudev Menon v. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax and Others
Case Number : Crl OP 8726 of 2023
The Madras High Court on Monday quashed an income tax prosecution against filmmaker Gautham Vasudev Menon for failure to file the income tax returns of his company, Photon Kathaas Productions Pvt Ltd, for the assessment year 2013-14. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan quashed the case pending against Menon before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The case against Menon was initiated under Section 276 CC read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act for non-filing of the returns of the company for the assessment year 2013-14.
Actor Vijay Appeals Single-Bench Ruling Of Madras High Court Upholding ₹1.5 Crore Income Tax Penalty
Case Title : C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others
Case Number : WA 39265/2026
Actor-turned-politician Joseph Vijay has moved a Division Bench of the Madras High Court against a single-judge ruling that upheld a ₹1.5 crore income tax penalty imposed on him. The appeal, filed last month, is yet to be listed for hearing. The challenge is to a judgment by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, who had dismissed Vijay's writ petition and upheld the penalty linked to alleged undisclosed income of Rs 15 crore for the financial year 2015–16.
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore v. M/s Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd.
Case Number : TC No. 955 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 99
The Madras High Court on 9 April held that the difference between the face value of lottery tickets and the discounted price at which a taxpayer sells them to dealers does not constitute “commission.” Therefore, it is not subject to tax deduction at source (TDS) under Section 194G of the Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and Shamim Ahmed dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's order in favour of Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd.
No Bad Debt Deduction From Taxable Income Without Actual Write-Off: Madras High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax I, Chennai vs M/s.The India Cements Ltd.
Case Number : Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 53 & 54 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 100
The Madras High Court has held that a taxpayer cannot claim a bad debt deduction merely by declaring a debt as irrecoverable and must comply with statutory conditions requiring an actual write-off in its books. A Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed observed, “Merely stating that a bad and doubtful debt is an irrecoverable is not sufficient to claim deduction. Appropriate treatment in the accounts, together with compliance of the conditions in sections 36(1)(vii), 36(2), and the explanation to section 36(1)(vii), are mandatory. Write off without following the mandate would not entitle the taxpayer to claim a deduction."
Case Title : M/s Kerala Roadways (P) Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : Tax Case ( Appeal ) Nos.373 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 106
The Madras High Court on 7 April, held that a return filed after the initiation of search proceedings and beyond the due date cannot qualify as a valid disclosure to exclude such income from undisclosed income in block assessment under the Income Tax Act. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and R. Sakthivel rejected the Kerala Roadways appeal. It partly accepted one of the Revenue's appeals and fully accepted another, while deciding issues on block assessment, revisional powers, and undisclosed income.
Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Tax Evasion Case, Says Wilfulness Is Matter For Trial
Case Title : Abdul Khader Mohammed Farook v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : Crl.O.P.No.9848 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 118
The Madras High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a taxpayer accused of failing to pay admitted income tax dues, noting that the issues raised had already been urged before the trial court and could not be re-agitated at a belated stage. A single-judge bench of Justice M. Niraml Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by Abdul Khader Mohammed Farook seeking to quash proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, for alleged wilful attempt to evade payment of tax under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Retrospective Amendments To Income Tax Act, 1961
Case Title : The Revenue Bar Association vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WP 21494/2026
The Madras High Court on Monday issued notice on a plea challenging several retrospective amendments to the Income-tax Act, 1961 introduced through the Finance Act, 2026, which are alleged to be unconstitutional and to impermissibly overturn judicial interpretations of tax provisions. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice Arul Murugan issued notice on the petition and is likely to hear the matter next on July 21. The plea was filed by the Revenue Bar Association, a Chennai-based body of tax law practitioners.
Cash Loan Given In Breach Of Income Tax Act Can Still Be Recovered: Madras High Court
Case Title : P. Palanikumar v. R. Selvi
Case Number : A.S. (MD) No. 162 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 148
The Madras High Court at Madurai has held that a cash loan advanced in breach of the Income Tax Act does not become illegal merely for that reason, and the lender can still seek recovery of the money. A bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima was dealing with a case in which P. Palanikumar claimed to have lent ₹25 lakh in cash instead of through an instrument as contemplated under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. The bench held that while the Income Tax Department was free to take action for any violation of the Act, such a breach would not render the transaction illegal or prevent the lender from seeking recovery of the amount.
Orissa HC
Orissa High Court Grants Interim Relief to Taxpayer Against Non-Faceless IT Reassessment
Case Title : Bibekananda Parida v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and Others
Case Number : WP(C) No.22306 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 9
The Orissa High Court on 2 February restrained the Income Tax Department from proceeding further on a reassessment notice issued to a Bhubaneswar-based taxpayer, after finding that the notice was not issued in accordance with the mandatory faceless procedure prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman was hearing a writ petition filed by Bibekananda Parida, challenging an order passed under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act along with a reassessment notice issued under Section 148.
Orissa High Court Grants Fresh Hearing To Taxpayer With Neurological Illness, Quashes Ex Parte Order
Case Title : Sri Susil Nath v. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Centre, New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.154 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ORI) 10
The Orissa High Court on 2 February set aside an ex parte assessment order against Sri Susil Nath, the taxpayer, as he could not participate due to neurological illness. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman noted: “As it appears from the record that the invoices along with vehicle particulars issued by the Government Authority could not be placed before the said Authority in view of the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.”
Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked In Factual Disputes: Orissa High Court
Case Title : Saroj Kumar Sahoo v. National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 30861 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 11
The Orissa High Court on 18 February, held that questions involving disputed facts, including the existence and relevance of incriminating material, cannot be examined in writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Saroj Kumar Sahoo, emphasised that extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not available where an effective alternative remedy exists under the Income Tax Act.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Sanjeet Singh and others v. Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chandigarh and others
Case Number : CWP-31147-2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 10
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 18 February, directed the Income Tax Department to immediately release jewellery seized from the Sanjeet Singh and other petitioners, holding that the department cannot demand a higher bank guarantee due to an increase in gold prices when the delay in release was solely attributable to administrative lapses of the authorities. A Division Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji allowed a writ petition which sought the release of jewellery seized during a search operation at the residential premises and bank lockers of Singh.
Rajasthan HC
Assessment Order Against Deceased Person Without Hearing Legal Heirs Invalid: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Shri Hitesh Patel v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3194/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 8
The Rajasthan High Court on 26 February, held that assessment proceedings cannot be validly continued or concluded against the legal heirs of a deceased taxpayer under Section 93 of the CGST Act, which limits liability to the estate inherited, unless the authorities comply with mandatory principles of natural justice, including issuance of a proper notice and grant of an opportunity of hearing to the legal representative. A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu found that the assessment order against Late Shri Bhagwan Lal Dangi, in which his son and legal representative Hitesh Patel was affected, failed to adequately set out the factual foundation and reasoning supporting the decision.
Taxpayer Must Be Heard Before 'Draconian' Step Of Provisional Attachment: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : ARL Infratech Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1217/2026
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 95
The Rajasthan High Court on 6 March observed that the minimum requirement before invoking provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to grant the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing to make the payment, or part of it, given the “draconian” nature of the provision. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma was hearing a petition by ARL Infratech Limited challenging an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax directing provisional attachment of the petitioner's property on the apprehension that a tax demand of around Rs. 1.3 crores might be created.
60% Tax Rate Under Section 115BBE Cannot Apply To Pre-1 April 2017 Income: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Deepak Maratha v. Union of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3625/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 26
The Rajasthan High Court on 27 May held that the enhanced tax rate of 60% introduced under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act through the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, cannot be applied retrospectively to income pertaining to Financial Year 2016–17, as the amendment was expressly made effective from 1 April 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Sunil Beniwal held that the higher rate could operate only prospectively and could not govern income earned prior to its commencement.
Telangana HC
Suspicion, Human Probabilities Insufficient For Tax Additions Without Evidence: Telangana High Court
Case Title : The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad v. Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITTA.Nos. 245, 246, 366 & 367 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 16
The Telangana High Court on 6 March held that additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or the test of human probabilities and must rest on concrete evidence. A Division Bench of Justices Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)'s decision to remand the issue of Rs. 182 crore share premium received by Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. for fresh examination.
Case Title : The Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Hyderabad v. M/s Jaypeem Granites (P) Ltd.
Case Number : ITTA.No.421 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 20
The Telangana High Court has upheld an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order that corrected its own contradictory ruling after it had simultaneously allowed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals on the very same issue. Holding that such an outcome was inherently inconsistent, a bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao observed the tribunal was justified in stepping in to resolve the contradiction, especially when it had already decided the issue on merits in favour of the assessee.
Case Title : The Ismailia Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Circle 5(1), Hyderabad
Case Number : INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.132 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 22
The Telangana High Court has held that interest earned by the Hyderabad-based co-operative credit society on bank deposits made from its business funds is eligible for deduction under the provision applicable to co-operative societies providing credit facilities to their members. "It is clear that eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) requires that the claim must relate to the profits and gains of business attributable to one or more of the activities specified therein. In the present case, the appellant is a cooperative society providing credit facilities, which falls directly under the specified activities. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) of the IT Act",it observed.
Case Title : The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITTA.No.47 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 23
The Telangana High Court has dismissed the revenue's appeal against Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. and held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer under Section 142A of the Income Tax Act is untenable where the taxpayer's books of accounts are neither rejected nor found defective. It also held that a reference under Section 142A can be made only during the course of assessment or reassessment proceedings and not for the purpose of initiating such proceedings.
Telangana High Court Upholds 1% Royalty Cap On Export Sales, Dismisses Gulf Oil Appeals
Case Title : Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income tax
Case Number : I.T.T.A.Nos.526 of 2015 & 101 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 25
The Telangana High Court on 26 March, upheld the restriction of royalty on export sales to 1% for Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd., holding that regulatory approvals permitting higher royalty rates do not determine arm's length price under transfer pricing provisions, which operate as a self-contained code under Sections 92 to 92F of the Income Tax Act. The Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao held that no substantial question of law arose in the matter and affirmed the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Telangana High Court Quashes IT Reassessment On Issue Already Examined, Calls It Change of Opinion
Case Title : Piramal Swasthya Management and Research Institute v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another
Case Number : WP.No.12288 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 26
The Telangana High Court has set aside income tax reassessment proceedings against Piramal Swasthya Management and Research Institute, holding that the tax department cannot reopen an issue it had already examined and accepted during the original assessment. “once the assessment proceedings are completed and assessment order is passed, the 1st respondent cannot reopen the assessment proceedings by issuing the impugned show-cause notice, dt.27.02.2023, alleging that Form 10 had not been electronically submitted, thereby disentitling the petitioner to the benefit of Sections 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act in respect of the amount of Rs.3,43,34,021/-,” the court held.
ITAT
Case Title : Chand Jewellers v. ITO
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 574/Asr/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AMR)23
The Amritsar Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) last month remanded a demonetisation-related reassessment case to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of purchase bills, sale bills, and receipt vouchers that were not examined at the assessment stage. A Bench comprising Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member, and Udayan Dasgupta, Judicial Member was hearing an appeal by Chand Jewellers, a partnership firm engaged in gold jewellery business against the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 1.03 crore as "unexplained cash deposits" during the demonetisation period.
Case Title : Hareon Solar Singapore Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
Case Number : ITA No.2226/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 24
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi has denied capital gains tax exemption to Hareon Solar Singapore Pvt. Ltd. under the India–Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, holding that the company was set up solely for claiming the tax benefit. The tribunal comprising Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member Ramit Kochar held, “Thus, we hold that the assessee company was created for the principal purposes of taking a tax advantage under the India-Singapore DTAA, while otherwise there is no economic substance or commercial justification for routing investment through assessee company based at Singapore. Thus, in the instant case, LOB clause 1 of Article 24A of India-Singapore DTAA is attracted.”
ITAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹1.14 Crore Transfer Pricing Adjustment For Lack Of Proper FAR Analysis
Case Title : Corporate Worldwide Stay LLP v Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department
Case Number : ITA No. 5940/Mum/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 25
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 6 January set aside a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1.14 crore against Corporate Worldwide Stay LLP, after finding that the revenue authorities had proceeded on assumptions about the firm's functions and risks without a proper FAR analysis. The bench, comprising Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav remitted to the assessing officer and transfer pricing officer for fresh adjudication.
Case Title : Dharamdas Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 73/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 26
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Ahmedabad has recently held that a charitable trust cannot be denied approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act merely because one of its objects provides for organising Ramkatha, Bhagwat Katha, and similar programmes for raising funds. A coram of Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha observed that object of the trust “cannot be said to be wholly or substantially religious in nature,” and that organising Ramkatha and Bhagwat Katha “cannot be said to be for the purpose of propagating any religion.”
ITAT Chennai Rules Cash Deposits Can Be Set Off Against Earlier Advances, Deletes ₹20 Lakh Addition
Case Title : Dhanabalan Selvamuthu Kumar v. ITO, Ward-1(5), Erode
Case Number : ITA No.1011/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 27
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 2 February deleted an addition of Rs. 20 lakh on a taxpayer out of the total Rs. 39.95 lakh made towards unexplained cash deposits and bank credits, observing that earlier bank deposits or cash advances can be set off against the said deposits. The matter was heard by Judicial Member Manu Kumar Giri and Accountant Member S.R. Raghunatha. The Bench noted that cash deposits of Rs. 20,00,000 in UCO Bank, made by Dhanabalan Selvamuthu Kumar, the assessee, on three different dates, had been treated as unexplained solely because no separate explanation was furnished for these deposits.
ITAT Chennai Cancels Rs 1.5 Lakh Penalty For Delayed Audit Filing, Cites Reasonable Cause
Case Title : Sahana Jewellery Exports Private Limited v. ITO, Corporate Ward-3, Coimbatore
Case Number : ITA No.3474/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 28
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 2 February deleted a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 imposed on a jewelry export company for delayed filing of its audit report under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A Bench of Judicial Member Abhy T. Varkey and Accountant Member S.R. Raghunatha, observed that penalty provisions could not to be mechanically invoked and that the assessee was prevented by “reasonable cause.”
Reopening Of Assessment Invalid If AO Fails To Show Reason To Believe: ITAT Chennai
Case Title : Aryan Share & Stock Brokers Ltd. v. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai
Case Number : ITA No.2756/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 29
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 2 February quashed the reopening of assessment against a SEBI-registered stock broker, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to satisfy the “reason to believe” requirement under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Judicial Member Abhy T. Varkey and Accountant Member S.R. Raghunatha observed that the recorded reasons were “extremely scanty and vague.”
They further held: “According to us, the reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. Reasons are the manifestation of mind of the AO. The reasons recorded should be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons.”
ITAT Delhi Quashes Tax Revision Against Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi For AY 2020–21
Case Title : Mukul Rohatgi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 2427/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT (DEL) 30
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on Monday quashed a revision order passed against Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Assessment Year 2020–21, holding that the Income Tax Department lacked material to exercise its revision powers for an assessment of Rs.133.46 crore. Section 263 allows a senior tax officer to revise a completed assessment if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In Rohatgi's case, the Tribunal held that these statutory conditions were not satisfied.
ITAT Mumbai Upholds Fresh Examination of Ambuja Cements' AY 2019–20 Assessment For Lack Of Inquiry
Case Title : Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No.3474/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 31
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed Ambuja Cements Limited's appeal against a revision order that had set aside its completed tax assessment for fresh verification, holding that the original assessment was passed “without due examination and verification.” The company had challenged the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order under Section 263 revising and setting aside its Assessment Year 2019–20 assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer had failed to verify material issues. The Tribunal has now upheld that revision, meaning the assessment remains set aside and will be examined afresh.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Revision Order Against Studds, Flags Lack of Clear Findings
Case Title : Studds Accessories Limited v. PCIT, Faridabad
Case Number : ITA No. 3570/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 35
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has recently set aside a revision order passed against Studds Accessories Limited for Assessment Year 2020–21, holding that the Principal Commissioner failed to show how the assessment was “erroneous as well as pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue.” Studds Accessories Limited is a popular two-wheeler helmet manufacturer. Allowing the appeal, the Bench of Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman said the Principal Commissioner “has not even whispered the mistake” on the detailed submissions made by the assessee.
ITAT Chennai Deletes Penalty for Under-Reporting Of Income After Finding 99% Tax Covered by TDS
Case Title : Shri Santhosh Abraham v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kancheepuram
Case Number : ITA No. 3950/CHNY/2025 & S.A. No. 137/CHNY/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 34
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has recently deleted a Rs. 2.57 lakh penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act (penalty for under-reporting of income) on an individual salaried taxpayer. The tribunal noted that TDS (tax deducted at source) on the assessee's salary had almost covered 99% of the total tax demand and held that, “When tax liability is covered by TDS, there is no manafide intention on the part of the assessee to conceal any particulars of income or under reporting his income. Therefore, the explanation of the assessee that he was prevented from filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year due to suffering Covid-19 is a bonafide explanation and covered u/s.270A(6)(a) of the Act.”
'Cannot Wear Cap of A Businessman': ITAT Delhi Deletes ₹53.30 Lakh Disallowance Against Zeta
Case Title : Zeta Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 3449/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 32
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief of Rs. 53.30 lakh to Zeta Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., a distributor of liquor and beverages, by deleting disallowances on payments to independent service providers and holding that the Revenue cannot question the commercial wisdom of such expenditure. For Assessment Year 2020–21, Zeta had declared total income of ₹98.48 lakh.The Assessing Officer had disallowed Rs. 31.80 lakh paid to S.P. Jindal Financial Services Limited towards internal audit and MIS services, Rs. 3 lakh paid to Bigthink Media Pvt. Ltd., and Rs. 18.50 lakh paid to S.P. Jindal Marketing Limited. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the additions.
Case Title : DCIT Vs. Shri Irfan
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3519 & 3520/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 33
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Revenue's appeals and upheld deletion of a protective addition of Rs.175.03 crore and an estimated commission addition of about Rs.1.75 crore made against a livestock supplier on allegations of providing accommodation entries to HMA Agro Industries Ltd. The Bench of Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman held that once the transactions were found to be genuine business transactions, the additions could not be sustained.
TDS Not Required Where Income Not Chargeable To Tax In India: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad v. Ms. Jagson Colorchem Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 1437/Ahd/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 38
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of a Rs. 5.63 crore disallowance made against Jagson Colorchem Limited, holding that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India. The Bench of Judicial Member T R Senthil Kumar and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha, observed: “Once the income is not chargeable to tax in India, the question of deducting TDS thereon under the provision of section 195 of the Act and disallowance of the entire payment under the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act does not arise."
ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes ₹9.65 Crore Addition On Demonetisation Cash Deposits Backed by Recorded Sales
Case Title : Bhaumik Jewellers Private Limited v. ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad
Case Number : ITA No. 1642/Ahd/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 37
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that once purchases are accepted and stock is not disputed, sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits merely because the cash was deposited during the demonetisation period. A bench of Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta deleted an addition of Rs.9,65,97,834 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, holding, “Once the purchases are accepted and the stock is not disputed, the sales flowing out of such stock cannot be treated as non-genuine.”
Entire Accommodation Entry Purchases Cannot Be Treated as “Unexplained Cash”: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title : Balaji Bullions And Commodities India Private Limited Vs DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Case Number : ITA No. 3755/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 42
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 23 February, held that even if purchases are accommodation entries, once they are recorded in regular books of account and routed through banking channels, they cannot be treated as “unexplained expenditure” under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. The Bench, comprising Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant and Judicial Member Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, was hearing cross-appeals in the case of Balaji Bullions and Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2017–18.
ITAT Mumbai Holds CSR Donations Deductible Under Section 80G, Allows Aditya Birla's PF Contributions
Case Title : Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited v. DCIT Circle-6(1)(1), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA Nos. 6663, 6701, 6702 & 6703/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 39
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 6 February, observed that CSR donations to approved institutions qualify for deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Bench also clarified that employees' provident fund contributions cannot be disallowed if deposited within the statutory due date. In the consolidated appeals filed by Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited, the Bench of Judicial Member Amit Shukla and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, partly allowed the appeals relating to assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2022-23, and 2023-24.
Case Title : Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No. 7912/MUM/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 36
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld a Rs. 146.73 crore interest disallowance against Tata Chemicals Ltd and affirmed a Rs. 3.62 crore transfer pricing adjustment, ruling against the company on the two biggest issues in its 2015-16 assessment. A Bench of Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary and Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant said, “In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity in the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel affirming the action of the Transfer Pricing Officer in re-characterising the preference share investment as a loan transaction and benchmarking the same accordingly.”
Case Title : Income Tax Officer v. Ratna Aggarwal
Case Number : ITA No.21/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 40
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an individual taxpayer, Ratna Aggarwal, holding that, in the facts of the case, a property received pursuant to a family settlement was not taxable under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides that where an individual receives immovable property without consideration from a person who is not a specified "relative," the stamp duty value of such property is taxable as income from other sources.
TDS On Consultant Doctors To Be Deducted As Professional Fees, Not Salary: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : DCIT v. Agilus Diagnostics Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No.2836/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 41
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Agilus Diagnostics Ltd and held that consultant doctors engaged by the company were independent professionals, not employees. Agilus Diagnostics Ltd. is engaged in the business of establishment, maintenance and management of clinical reference laboratories in India.
Tax Exemption Cannot Be Denied For Mere Registration Of Land In Trustees' Names: ITAT Chennai
Case Title : The ACIT (Exemptions), Chennai v. Everwin Educational & Charitable Trust
Case Number : ITA No.2811/Chny/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 43
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 February, held that exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied to Everwin Educational & Charitable Trust, merely because land acquired for construction of a school was registered in the names of its trustees. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Aby T. Varkey and Accountant Member Amitabh Shukla dismissed the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 and upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who had deleted the addition.
Case Title : Ganna Vikas Parishad v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department
Case Number : ITA No.7788/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 45
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded to the Assessing Officer the case of Ganna Vikas Parishad, Nanauta, holding that the authorities below had not examined the constitution and activities of the taxpayer while sustaining an addition of Rs 32,91,119 and denying its claim of exemption. Judicial Member C.N. Prasad observed that although he “could not find fault with the reasoning of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition,” the authorities had failed to examine the nature of the assessee.
ITAT Delhi Remands Dispute Over ₹32.13 Lakh Addition Based On Seized Excel Sheet
Case Title : Anuradha Singh v. Circle 5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar
Case Number : ITA No.8303/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 44
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has restored to the Assessing Officer a dispute in relation to the addition of Rs 32.13 lakh made against a Greater Noida taxpayer in connection with the purchase of a commercial unit. The tribunal directed that all material relied upon must be furnished to the taxpayer and cross-examination allowed if any statements are used to sustain the addition.
Case Title : Verizon Communications India P. Ltd. v. Additional CIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 442/DEL/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 47
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) could not reject a taxpayer's limited risk model without citing any comparable uncontrolled transactions and partly set aside a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 83.49 crore against Verizon Communications India Pvt. Ltd., restricting the adjustment to Rs. 23.81 crore. A Bench comprising Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma upheld the company's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA and deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) relating to payments made to foreign telecom operators.
Case Title : KP Diamonds (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No.6351/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 48
The New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that cash sales recorded during the demonetisation period cannot be treated as unexplained income merely on the basis of suspicion or human probabilities, when such sales are duly reflected in audited books of account and supported by stock records, invoices, and VAT returns. The bench consisting of Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal, was dealing with an appeal filed by M/s KP Diamonds (P) Ltd., a trader in diamonds and gold jewellery, for the assessment year 2017–18.
Case Title : Nishant Anand v. The Assessing Officer Delhi
Case Number : ITA No.6622/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 50
The New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that payments towards credit card dues cannot be added as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act when the assessee is able to satisfactorily explain the source of such payments with supporting evidence. A single bench of Judicial Member CN Prasad, was dealing with the appeal filed by an individual assessee for Assessment Year 2023–24, where the Assessing Officer had treated credit card payments of Rs 11.32 lakh as unexplained expenditure, invoking Sections 69C read with 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
'No Whisper Of Tangible Material': ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment Against Vedanta For AY 2010-11
Case Title : Vedanta Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 26(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2405/Del/2019 & 2250/Del/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 51
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed reassessment proceedings against Vedanta Limited for Assessment Year 2010-11. It held that the reopening beyond four years was without jurisdiction as it was not based on any fresh tangible material. A coram of Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Brajesh Kumar Singh observed that “there is no whisper of any tangible material which came to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to the passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.01.2013 or there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment in the return of income for that assessment year in respect of the above two issues on which the assessment was reopened.”
Case Title : Varun Beverages Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7, New Delhi
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3476/Del/2025, 3477/Del/2025 & 3478/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 49
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that no transfer pricing adjustment is warranted where the interest charged on loans advanced to associated enterprises exceeds the internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP). The bench comprising Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal deleted the entire transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 3,42,31,778 for Assessment Year 2017-18 in the case of Varun Beverages Limited, including Rs 2,84,45,221 towards interest on foreign currency loans advanced to overseas associated enterprises and Rs 57,86,557 towards notional interest on outstanding receivables.
No Disallowance Of Interest In Absence of Nexus Between Borrowed Funds And Advances: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Shivam Agrioils Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 1030/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 46
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 February, held that interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained in the absence of a nexus between borrowed funds and interest-free advances, particularly where such advances were granted in years preceding the borrowings and were supported by commercial expediency. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Amitabh Shukla deleted the addition of Rs. 43,86,674 made towards alleged diversion of interest-bearing funds and allowed the appeal filed by Shivam Agrioils Private Limited (the taxpayer) for Assessment Year 2018-19.
Air India SATS Entitled To Tax Benefits On Ground & Cargo Handling Income: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : ACIT v. M/s Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 5026/Del/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 52
On 26 February, the New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Air India SATS Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.'s income from airport ground handling and cargo handling operations qualifies for tax incentives available to eligible infrastructure-related service providers. A Bench of Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra heard the Revenue's appeal, which challenged the deduction claimed by Air India SATS under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act on income derived from airport ground handling and cargo handling operations.
Notice Issued By Officer Without Jurisdiction Cannot Sustain Assessment: ITAT Quashes Assessment
Case Title : Jagruti Kirti Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 23(1), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA Nos. 5844/Mum/2025 & 6125/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 53
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 February quashed an assessment against taxpayer Jagruti Kirti Shah, holding that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction as per the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Instruction No. 1 of 2011. Instruction 1 prescribes the officer-level jurisdiction for issuing scrutiny notices based on the assessee's income and category. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary and Accountant Member Bijayananda Pruseth, allowed the taxpayer's additional ground and set aside the assessment order dated 24 December 2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Penalty Invalid Where AO Issues Stereotypical Notice Without Specifying Charge: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Ms. Deepti Goel v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No. 6069/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 54
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 February quashed an income tax penalty imposed on a taxpayer, after finding that the Assessing Officer issued a stereotypical penalty notice without specifying the exact charge under the Income Tax Act. A Tribunal Bench comprising Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Renu Jauhri held that a notice issued must clearly state whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Failure to specify the charge renders the penalty proceedings invalid.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment Against Lalit Modi Over Credit Card, Private Jet Expenses
Case Title : Lalit Kumar Modi v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No.1636/DEL/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 55
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against former IPL commissioner Lalit Kumar Modi over alleged unexplained credit card expenditure and private jet costs. The tribunal held that reassessment cannot be initiated while regular scrutiny assessment proceedings are still pending. A bench of Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Brajesh Kumar Singh held that the reassessment was without jurisdiction. It observed that initiating reassessment in such circumstances amounted to impermissible parallel proceedings.
ITAT Delhi Upholds Deletion Of ₹1.34 Crore Tax Addition Against NDTV
Case Title : DCIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd. & New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No.1564/Del/2016 & ITA No.1623/Del/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 56
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Delhi on Friday upheld relief granted to New Delhi Television Ltd. (NDTV) in a dispute over a Rs 1.34 crore disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2010–11. The tribunal held that expenditure cannot be disallowed under the provision where the taxpayer has not earned any tax-exempt income during the relevant year. A bench comprising Judicial Member Madhumita Roy and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal challenging the deletion of the disallowance.
ITAT Delhi Upholds Tax Incentive For Big Babol, Mentos Maker Perfetti's Uttarakhand Unit
Case Title : ACIT v. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 623/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 57
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the order allowing confectionery manufacturer Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. to claim tax deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act on profits from its Rudrapur manufacturing unit in Uttarakhand. A bench of Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the deduction.
Builder Incentives For Timely Payment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income from Other Sources': ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Sh. Satya Prasan Rajguru v. DCIT Circle
Case Number : ITA No. 2550/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 58
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 February held that rebates or concessions provided by a builder under an apartment buyer's agreement cannot be treated as taxable income under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal was hearing the appeal filed by Satya Prasan Rajguru against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2021–22.
ITAT Mumbai Deletes Additions On Individual Taxpayer, Rules Cash Redeposits Not “Unexplained”
Case Title : Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 8597 & 8598/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 59
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 February deleted additions made on cash deposits in the bank account of an individual taxpayer, holding that redeposits of earlier withdrawals cannot be treated as unexplained money in the absence of evidence that the cash was used elsewhere. A Bench comprising Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant and Judicial Member Kavitha Rajagopal allowed the appeals of the taxpayer, Nitinkumar Pravinchandra Kacharia, for Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-24.
Partial Use Of Director's Farmhouse For Business Does Not Bar Depreciation Claim: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : DCIT v. Malhotra Cables Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1317-1324/Del/2025; 1108, 1107, 1097 & 1102/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 60
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 11 March 2026 upheld the deletion of disallowances relating to repair expenses and depreciation claimed on a farmhouse owned by Jagadish Chander Malhotra, Director of Malhotra Cables Pvt. Ltd, after finding that part of the premises was used for business purposes. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Challa Nagendra Prasad and Accountant Member M. Balaganesh affirmed the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which had allowed the expenses.
ITAT Ahmedabad Grants Digvijay Lions Foundation Final Chance For 12A Renewal With ₹10,000 Cost
Case Title : Digvijay Lions Foundation v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
Case Number : ITA No. 169/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 61
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 February granted Digvijay Lions Foundation a final opportunity to furnish documents for renewal of its charitable registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha, was hearing the foundation's appeal against rejection of its renewal application by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad.
Goodwill Arising From Amalgamation Eligible For Depreciation In Subsequent Years: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : ACIT v. Unicorn Packaging LLP & Ors.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 893 to 898/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 62
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that depreciation on goodwill arising from an amalgamation can be continued in subsequent years, as long as it pertains to the same intangible asset already recognized in the foundational year. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha upheld the deletion of disallowance of depreciation claimed by Unicorn Packers Pvt. Ltd. (now part of the taxpayer LLP) on goodwill arising from its amalgamation with Urmin Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Charitable Registration Cannot Be Cancelled For Disputed Transactions Alone: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : Richmond Educational Society Vs DCIT/ACIT
Case Number : ITA No. 4779/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2024-25)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 63
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 11 March held that the registration of a charitable institution under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of alleged irregularities in certain financial transactions, as long as the core charitable activities continue to be genuine. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Challa Nagendra Prasad and Accountant Member M. Balaganesh restored the charitable registration of Richmond Educational Society and set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, observing that financial transactions alone cannot justify cancellation.
ITAT Ahmedabad Upholds 100% Deduction After Expansion Of Sintex's Himachal Unit
Case Title : DCIT v. Sintex Industries Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 715/Ahd/2025 with Cross Objection No. 88/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 64
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the eligibility of Sintex Industries Ltd. to claim 100% deduction on profits under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act even after the initial five-year period where the eligible unit had undertaken substantial expansion. The tribunal coram of Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs 59.53 crore made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2010-11.
Escaped Income Must Include Real Taxable Income, Not Aggregate Value: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Rupinder Singh Duggal v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No: 1921/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 65
The Ahmedabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 16 March, held that the expression “income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment” under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act refers to the actual taxable income sought to be brought to tax, and not the gross value of underlying transactions. A Bench comprising Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar quashed the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2017–18, holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was invalid because the alleged escaped income did not meet the statutory threshold of Rs.50 lakhs.
ITAT Ahmedabad Grants Partial Relief To Arrow Clothing In Demonetisation Cash Deposit Addition Case
Case Title : Arrow Clothing Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No. 2532/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 66
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Ahmedabad partly allowed an appeal of Arrow Clothing Pvt. Ltd, holding that addition for unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation was justified, but the taxpayer was entitled to credit for opening cash balance and prior bank withdrawals. A coram of Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta held that anomalies were found only in the explanation relating to cash sales and not in the opening cash balance or bank withdrawals of Rs 11.38 lakh.
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle v. Blend Financial Services Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 8088/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 67
The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of disallowance of foreign travel expenses made against a company engaged in global management and financial consultancy services. The court held that in the facts of the case, the expenditure could not be disallowed merely because no income was directly earned from certain countries visited during the relevant year where the taxpayer had produced material showing business purpose and nexus with its activities.
ITAT Ahmedabad Sets Aside Ad-Hoc Expense Disallowance As AO Failed To Point Out Defects
Case Title : Raghani Tradelink v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No.1692/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 68
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently set aside ad-hoc disallowances made against Raghani Tradelink, a commission agent engaged in facilitating sales of sarees, suits, and garments across India, holding that additions towards sub-brokerage and administrative expenses cannot be sustained when the Assessing Officer fails to point out specific discrepancies in the evidence produced by the assessee. The coram comprising Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta was dealing with the appeal filed by the taxpayer for the Assessment Year 2020–21.
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Zen Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : 888/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 69
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of tax additions made against a mouth freshener manufacturing company, finding that the additions were founded only on loose sheets that lacked basic particulars and were unsupported by any corroborative evidence to establish unaccounted transactions. The case arose from a search conducted on a third party, during which certain handwritten loose sheets were found in the possession of an employee of the taxpayer company, Zen Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Lower Cost Of Acquisition Without Justification Not Warranted: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Nirmalaben Kamleshbhai Contractor v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department
Case Number : ITA No.1911/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 70
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 February held that adopting a lower deemed cost of acquisition than that accepted for co-owners, without justification, was not warranted. A Tribunal Bench comprising Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble allowed the appeal of Nirmalaben Kamleshbhai Contractor and allowed deduction under Section 54EC, finding the investment was made within the prescribed period.
Case Title : Shilpa Shetty Kundra vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No.996/M/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 71
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently asked actor Shilpa Shetty Kundra to submit “complete details/clarifications and documents” to justify a Rs 12.54-crore gift received from her husband Raj Kundra, while remanding the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh examination under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Judicial Member Narender Kumar Choudhry and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar said the material on record was not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transaction and required further factual verification. The Bench noted that Shetty had not fully discharged the initial burden placed on her under the Act.
Double Taxation Of Share Application Money Impermissible: ITAT Kolkata
Case Title : Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Kolkata v. Littlestar Securities Private Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 694/KOL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 72
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 6 March, held that taxing share application money already taxed in the hands of investor companies amounts to impermissible double addition. The Bench comprising Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar and Judicial Member Pradip Kumar Choubey dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Littlestar Securities Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2012-13 and upheld the deletion of Rs. 27.63 crore added as unexplained cash credit.
Ad-Hoc Estimation of Income Without Rejecting Books of Account Not Permissible: ITAT Kolkata
Case Title : Rakhi Mondal v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (NFAC)
Case Number : ITA No. 2151/Kol/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 73
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 February 2026 held that income cannot be estimated on an ad-hoc basis without first rejecting the books of account, and set aside an addition made on that basis while quashing the reassessment proceedings. The Bench comprising Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar and Judicial Member Pradip Kumar Choubey allowed the appeal filed by Rakhi Mondal for Assessment Year 2017-18. It held: “the said reopening has been done without meeting the specific requirement as provided u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, we quash reopening of assessment.”
Bona Fide Delay In Filing Tax Appeal Caused By Pursuing Alternate Remedy Condonable: ITAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. A-One Leathers v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai
Case Number : ITA No. 4148/CHNY/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 74
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that a delay of 1036 days in filing an appeal could be condoned when it arose from pursuing an alternate remedy and was not deliberate. A Bench comprising Vice President George George K and Accountant Member S.R. Raghunatha, in an appeal filed by A-One Leathers for Assessment Year 2015-16, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine a claim of double taxation. It observed: “The delay… neither wanton nor willful but only on account of the party pursuing an alternate remedy under the rectification route.”
Case Title : Vinayaga Fireworks v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 2282/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 75
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 3 March 2026 held that cash deposits made during the demonetisation period cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if corresponding sales are accepted and recorded in the books of account. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Viswanethra Ravi and Accountant Member S.R. Raghunatha allowed an appeal by Vinayaga Fireworks, a Sivakasi-based cracker manufacturer, against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. It observed: “Unless the sales are held to be bogus, the corresponding sales receipts cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits.”
ITAT Mumbai Deletes ₹48.97 Lakh Tax Addition Against Zee Entertainment For Failing To Record Reasons
Case Title : Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No.6872/Mum/2025 & ITA No.6873/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 76
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Mumbai has recently given relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd by deleting a Rs 48.97 lakh tax addition under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with expenses linked to earning tax-free income. The Tribunal held that tax officers cannot recalculate such expenses without first clearly explaining why they disagree with the company's own calculation. A coram comprising Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia was hearing appeals filed by Zee against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250, the provision that governs the first stage of tax appeals.
Case Title : Income Tax Officer v. Udayan Mandavia
Case Number : I.T.A. No.154/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 77
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Department's appeal in a dispute over the applicable tax rate on unexplained income, holding that the enhanced 60% tax under Section 115BBE cannot be applied to Assessment Year 2017–18 and that such a change cannot be made through rectification under Section 154. Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, imposes a steep penal tax rate on unexplained income, such as cash credits, investments, or assets found during searches or assessments.
Case Title : State Bank of India Bhavnagar Para Branch v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : I.T.A. No.453&454/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 78
The Ahmedabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that State Bank of India (SBI) cannot be treated as an “assessee in default” for failure to deduct tax at source on Leave Fare Concession (LFC) payments made to its employees, where such non-deduction was in compliance with binding interim orders of a High Court. A coam of Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha observed that, during the relevant period, the bank was bound by interim orders of the Madras High Court, which had directed that LFC payments would not be treated as income and no tax was required to be deducted at source.
ITAT Delhi Dismisses Multiple Revenue Appeals Against Make My Trip Across TP, TDS Issues
Case Title : DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/s. Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No.5095/Del/2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 79
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. It held that advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenditure cannot be treated as an international transaction where the Indian entity owns the brand and upheld deletion of a Rs. 31.81 crore transfer pricing adjustment. The bench comprising Judicial Member C.N. Prasad and Accountant Member M. Balaganesh was dealing with appeals arising from orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The matters related to assessment years 2009–10, 2011–12, and 2012–13 to 2015–16.
Overall Assessment Time Limit Applies Even In Dispute Resolution Panel Cases: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : BT India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi
Case Number : ITA Nos. 533 & 1701/Del/2022 (ITAT Delhi)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 79
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that final assessment orders under Section 144C (DRP route) must comply with the overarching time limit under Section 153 (assessment deadline), holding that orders passed beyond this limit are time-barred. A coram comprising Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Sanjay Awasthy was dealing with appeals filed by BT India Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, wherein the primary issue was whether the assessment orders were barred by limitation.
Reassessment Beyond Three Years Without PCCIT Approval Invalid: ITAT Chennai
Case Title : Vasanthi Ragunathan v. The ITO Ward
Case Number : ITA No.2896/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 80
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 March held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid if the Assessing Officer does not obtain prior approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as mandated under the Income Tax Act. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Aby T. Varkey and Accountant Member S.R. Raghunatha, set aside the reassessment notice issued against Vasanthi Ragunathan, observing: “the notice under section 148 is dated 13.04.2022, which event is undisputedly beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the relevant AY; and therefore as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Act, the AO should have obtained the approval from Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) before issuing the ibid notice. However, in the present case the AO has obtained approval from Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Coimbatore, while issuing notice under section 148 and therefore the notice is found to be in defiance to prescription given in section 151 of the Act and hence it is invalid in eyes of law.”
Disallowance Irrelevant Where Tax Liability Arises Under MAT: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Shalby Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 1227/AHD/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 81
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 March, reiterated that a disallowance computed under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules cannot be imported into the computation of book profit under the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha, allowed the appeal filed by Shalby Ltd., observing that even if the alleged disallowance were made, it would not impact the taxpayer's liability, as the tax for the relevant assessment year arose entirely under the MAT provisions.
No TDS Under Section 194-IA On Rural Agricultural Land Transactions: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : The Income Tax Officer v. Tarun Santramdas Varma
Case Number : I.T.A. No.2549/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 82
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 26 March, held that buyers of rural agricultural land are not required to deduct TDS under Section 194-IA of the Income Tax Act, and interest under Section 201(1A) is not leviable. The Bench, comprising Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble, dismissed the Revenue's appeal while confirming that Tarun Santramdas Varma (taxpayer) did not owe TDS on certain rural agricultural land transactions.
Case Title : Firoj Sabbirmohmmad Moravala v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No. 2106/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 83
A motorcycle sub-dealer from the Panchmahal district, Gujarat, has secured a fresh opportunity before tax authorities after the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside an addition of ₹97.35 lakh towards unexplained cash deposits, while imposing a cost of Rs 10,000 for earlier non-compliance. A coram of Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha observed that the addition was made largely due to non-compliance and lack of evidence, holding that “the issue requires fresh examination at the level of the Assessing Officer” and that “one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate his claim.”
ITAT Ahmedabad Upholds Reopening of IT Assessment On Cash Deposits, Orders Peak Credit Taxation
Case Title : Kanubhai Ambalal Patel v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No. 1939/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 84
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld the reopening of the assessment of an individual for AY 2016–17 based on cash deposit information but directed that only the peak credit in his bank account be taxed, noting that taxing the entire deposits would be excessive. A coram comprising Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha held that the reopening was valid as it was based on tangible material, observing that “such information constituted tangible material… suggesting escapement of income.”
Notings In Seized Excel Sheet Alone Cannot Justify "Bogus" Expenditure Addition: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : ACIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara v. HK Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : IT(SS)A Nos. 73–78/Ahd/2025 & connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 85
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that transactions already recorded in regular books of account cannot be treated as “bogus” expenditure solely based on entries in a seized Excel sheet. A Bench comprising Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra R. Kamble, on 18 March, upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, holding: “There is no reason for us to believe that a notation in a planning sheet represents a 'bogus' expense when the corresponding amount is clearly reflected in the audited books of account and the bank-verified trail.”
Case Title : Meenaben Vishnubhai Patel v. The ITO
Case Number : ITA No.395/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 86
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 23 March, held that delay in filing an appeal by a lady senior citizen constituted a sufficient and reasonable cause, and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta condoned a delay of 153 days, observing that the taxpayer's unfamiliarity with income tax procedures and technology justified the delay.
Reassessment Based On General Penny Stock Reports Alone Cannot Stand: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Bhupesh Sajjansinh Rathod v. NFAC, Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 1800/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 87
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 1 April, held that reassessment cannot be based solely on general penny stock investigation reports without any material linking the taxpayer, and deleted additions made towards alleged bogus capital gains and commission. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta allowed the appeal of Bhupesh Sajjansinh Rathod, an individual investor, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, which had upheld additions arising from alleged penny stock transactions.
Unspent Accumulation Taxable After 5 Years For Charitable Trusts: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. State Examination Board
Case Number : ITA No. 1505/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 88
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 1 April held that income accumulated by a charitable entity but not utilised within the permitted five-year period becomes taxable, and claiming exemption again on such amount amounts to double deduction. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta, allowed the Revenue's appeal and restored the addition made by the Assessing Officer against State Examination Board, Nr. Government Library.
Case Title : Keysight Technologies International India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Dy. CIT
Case Number : ITA No.3813/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 89
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has partly allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that companies cannot be excluded as comparables merely for incurring losses in two out of three years and that foreign exchange fluctuations arising from business transactions must be treated as operating in nature. A coram comprising Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal held that “persistent loss filter can be applied only if there is loss in three successive assessment years and if there is profit in anyone of the three successive financial years selected, then the company cannot be excluded,” while dealing with the exclusion of certain comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
ITAT Kolkata Remands ₹92.67 Crore Addition Against Addhya Forex, Upholds Right To Fair Hearing
Case Title : Addhya Forex (P) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA No. 215/KOL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 91
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 6 April remanded reassessment proceedings against Addhya Forex (P) Ltd., holding that the addition of Rs. 92.67 crore was based on ex parte orders and directing the Assessing Officer to give the taxpayer a fresh opportunity to present its case. A Bench comprising Judicial Member George Mathan and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), observing: In VNG Automotive Case “Since no compliance was made before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) and both the orders are in effect ex parte orders, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed.”
ITAT Kolkata Deletes ₹43.98 Lakh Addition Against Disha Eye Hospitals For Genuine SBN Receipts
Case Title : Disha Eye Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA No. 2420/KOL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 90
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 6 April deleted a Rs. 43.98 lakh addition made against Disha Eye Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., holding that receipts from a genuine source, even if in demonetised notes (SBNs), cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. A Bench comprising Judicial Member George Mathan and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra observed: In VNG Automotive Case “Only on account of the fact that the receipts were in SBNs, the same could not be added u/s 69A of the Act when the source of receipts has not been disputed.”
ITAT Kolkata Remands DIC Fine Chemicals' Transfer Pricing, Book Profit, Interest Adjustments Per APA
Case Title : M/s DIC Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA No. 2611/KOL/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 92
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 6 April, held that when a company enters into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) covering the relevant assessment year, transfer pricing disputes must be reconsidered in accordance with the APA. A Bench of Judicial Member Sonjoy Sarma and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra remanded the arm's length price determination for AY 2021-22 in favour of DIC Fine Chemicals, observing that the APA dated 24 March 2025 applies to this year and must guide the adjustments. The Tribunal held: In VNG Automotive Case “Since the assessee had entered into an APA with the CBDT and the impugned AY 2021-22 is also covered in the APA dated 24.03.2025, the issue of Arm's Length Price... is hereby remanded to the Ld. AO who shall consider the APA and thereafter make an adjustment as per law.”
ITAT Mumbai Grants Relief To Sachin Khedekar, Holds Delay In Filing Form 67 Not Fatal For FTC Claim
Case Title : Sachin Shrikant Khedekar v. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No.431/Mum./2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 93
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 10 April allowed an appeal filed by actor Sachin Shrikant Khedekar and held that delay in filing Form No. 67 is a procedural lapse and cannot justify denial of foreign tax credit under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Bench of Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail and Accountant Member Bijayananda Pruseth held: “.....mere delay in filing Form No. 67 as per the provisions of Rule 128(9), as they stood during the year under consideration, will not preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of foreign tax credit in respect of tax paid outside India.....”
ITAT New Delhi Dismisses Revenue Appeal Against Bharat Kalia, Finds No 50CA Violation In Share Sale
Case Title : DCIT v. Bharat Kalia
Case Number : ITA No.295/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 94
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 10 April dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Bharat Kalia and held that no addition under Section 50CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made where the sale consideration of unquoted shares exceeds the fair market value determined under the prescribed rules. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal observed: “provision of Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules are applicable for the purpose of valuation of unquoted equity shares of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Whereas for the purpose of determination of fair market value of unquoted equity shares u/s 50CA of the Act, provisions as contained in sub-clause (b) & (c) of Rule 11UA(1)(b) of the Rule are applicable, according to which report could be obtained either from Merchant Banker or from CA.”
Revenue Cannot Disallow Trademark Depreciation Once Accepted In Initial Year: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title : DCIT – Central Circle – 3(4), Mumbai v. Transworld Furtichem Private Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 2693/Mum./2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 95
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 10 April held that depreciation on a trademark arising out of an amalgamation, once allowed in the initial year, cannot be disallowed in subsequent years in the absence of any change in facts. A Bench comprising Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant and Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail delivered the ruling while deciding Revenue's appeals and Transworld Furtichem Private Limited's cross-objections for multiple assessment years.
ITAT Mumbai Allows Co-operative Society Tax Deduction On Interest Income From Co-op Banks
Case Title : New Bombay Co-operative Commercial Complex Premises Society Ltd. v. ITO
Case Number : ITA No. 1440/M/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM)
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has granted relief to a co-operative society by holding that deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is allowable on interest income earned from deposits with co-operative banks, noting that the issue is already covered by judicial precedents including Pathare Prabhu Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO. “As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Assessee by the aforesaid judgment referred to above, thus, the addition under consideration is deleted, subject to factual verification by JAO.”
No Penalty If High Court Admits Quantum Issue As Substantial Question Of Law: Mumbai ITAT
Case Title : M/s. Small Industries Development Bank of India v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 526 & 527/Mum./2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM)97
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 15 April held that “penalty” under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained where the quantum issue has already been admitted by the High Court as a substantial question of law. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail and Accountant Member Bijayananda Pruseth quashed the penalty imposed on the Small Industries Development Bank of India, holding that admission of a substantial question of law by the High Court shows that the issue is debatable and supports the bona fide nature of the its claim.
Final Assessment Without Draft Order Under Section 144C Invalid: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 4400/Del/2025; IT(TP)A No. 14/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 98
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 10 April, held that the Assessing Officer's failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act renders the final order void. The Bench comprising Judicial Member C N Prasad and Accountant Member M Balaganesh allowed the appeals filed by Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. against the assessment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
No Separate Tax Addition On Cash Already Owned By Group Company: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : DCIT, Central Circle 26, Delhi v. Lalit Kumar Taluja
Case Number : ITA No.5456/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 99
On 16 April, the New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that once cash seized during search proceedings has already been owned and taxed in the hands of a group company before the Settlement Commission, authorities cannot again add the same amount in the hands of an individual, even if it was found in a locker held in his name. The Bench comprising Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Vimal Kumar dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Lalit Kumar Taluja for Assessment Year 2020–21, holding: “no doubt there was some cash found in the Locker No.75 maintained with HDFC Bank and the locker was owned by the assessee. The assessee, being the employee of the group company, the group company had owned up the above said cash kept in the abovesaid locker and the issue was settled before the IBS. Since the above cash owned up by the company, the same addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee even though the assessee is not one of the applicants before the IBS. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the ld. CIT (A).”
Case Title : Reliance Jio Infocomm USA Inc. v. DCIT (International Tax), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No. 2991/Mum/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 100
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that Rs. 23.20 crore received by Reliance Jio Infocomm USA Inc. for providing voice termination services to Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. cannot be treated as royalty or fees for technical services (FTS) under Indian tax law or the India–US tax treaty. It said the income is in the nature of business profits and therefore not taxable in India. The decision was delivered by Judicial Member Beena Pillai and Accountant Member Bijayananda Pruseth. The tax department had argued that the payments amounted to “process royalty," pointing to the use of telecom infrastructure, software and network systems. This position had earlier been endorsed by the Dispute Resolution Panel, which viewed the services as falling within the definition of “process”.
ITAT Mumbai Sets Aside CIT(A) Enhancement Of Taxable Income On Issue Not Examined By AO
Case Title : Skyline Greathills v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3466 & 3904/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(101)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Mumbai has held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a fresh issue that was never examined by the Assessing Officer, setting aside an addition made through adjustment of work in progress in the case of Skyline Greathills, a real estate company. A Bench of Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia observed, “Section 251(1) of the Act restricts the CIT(A) to assume jurisdiction for enhancement of income, on an issue or new source of income, which was not dealt with or considered by the AO during the assessment proceedings.”
Delay In Final Approval Filing Not Adverse Where Caused By Confusion In Amended Law: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Navsarjan Education Trust Metoda Sampran School v. The Dy. CIT Cir-2
Case Number : ITA No(s) 2483/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 102
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), has held that delay in filing an application for final approval cannot be held against a taxpayer where such delay arises due to genuine confusion created by newly amended statutory provisions and procedural uncertainty during the transition period. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta while dealing with the case of Navsarjan Education Trust, observed that both taxpayers and tax authorities faced genuine difficulty in interpreting the amended regime introduced with effect from 1 April 2021.
Case Title : Mrs. Chandra Swaminathan v. The ITO
Case Number : ITA No.2034/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 103
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Chennai has recently deleted additions of Rs.49.80 lakh and Rs.10.80 lakh made against a taxpayer after finding that her investment in a new flat and cash deposits were wrongly treated as unexplained, despite being traceable to the sale of her earlier property and household items. A bench of Judicial Member Aby T. Varkey and Accountant Member S.R. Raghunatha held, “We thus find that the addition made by the AO u/s 69A was without any basis and on incorrect appreciation of relevant facts and that he had misdirected himself on irrelevant material."
Case Title : Vintage Distillers Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA Nos.6435 to 6440/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 104
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 April, held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years are invalid unless the Revenue demonstrates that the alleged escaped income is represented in the form of an “asset” exceeding Rs. 50 lakh, as required under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal quashed reassessment notices issued under Section 148 in the case of Vintage Distillers Ltd., holding them to be barred by limitation.
ITAT Delhi Upholds Deletion Of ₹10.5 Crore Addition Based On Retracted Statement In Oppo Search Case
Case Title : ACIT Central Circle-30 v. Sanjay Goel
Case Number : ITA No.4500/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 105
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 April upheld the deletion of a Rs. 10.5 crore addition made solely on the basis of a retracted statement recorded during search proceedings, holding that such statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence, cannot by themselves sustain an addition under the Income-tax Act. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had deleted the addition in a case arising from a search conducted in the Oppo Mobile India Group.
CIT(A) Cannot Introduce New Income Source While Enhancing Assessment: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title : M/s Skyline Greathills v. DCIT, Central Circle -8(2)
Case Number : I.T.A. No.3466/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 106
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot enhance income by introducing a new source of income that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not examine during assessment. It ruled that enhancement powers do not extend to issues beyond the scope of the original assessment. The Bench comprising Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia allowed Skyline Greathills' appeal on the Work-in-Progress (WIP) enhancement and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on deemed dividend and Joint Development Agreement valuation.
ITAT Quashes Reassessment Based On Third-Party Statements, Deletes ₹94.5 Lakh Additions
Case Title : Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 1452/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHA) 107
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 7 April 2026 held that reassessment proceedings cannot survive where the Assessing Officer relies solely on general third-party statements without establishing a clear nexus with the taxpayer, as such material fails to show independent application of mind or escapement of income. The Bench comprising Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra R. Kamble allowed the appeal filed by Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2009-10 and set aside the reassessment proceedings while deleting additions of Rs. 94.5 lakh.
Debatable Issues Cannot Be Rectified Under Section 154 Of Income Tax Act: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : The Madhavpura Mercantile Co Op Bank Limited v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA No. 2241 & 2242/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHA) 108
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 7 April held that authorities cannot invoke Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to rectify debatable issues, as the provision applies only to mistakes apparent from the record. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha quashed the rectification order passed against The Madhavpura Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd (under liquidation). It held, “Any issue which is debatable in nature cannot be subject matter of rectification proceeding u/s. 154 of the Act.”
ITAT Ahmedabad Remands ₹7.71 Crore Addition Over Possible Duplication In Bank Credits
Case Title : Money Assurance Services v. ITO
Case Number : ITA No. 252/AHD/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHA) 109
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 7 April 2026 held that additions based on bank credits, accommodation entries and interest income must be properly reconciled to avoid duplication while determining taxable income. A Bench comprising Judicial Member TR Senthil Kumar and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha partly allowed the appeal filed by Money Assurance Services for assessment year 2014–15, observing: “The AO should have excluded the interest income and accommodation entry credited to the HDFC bank account and thereafter considered only the balance amount for making the addition.”
ITAT Ahmedabad Quashes Reassessment As AO Shifts From Bogus Loan To LTCG From Penny Stocks
Case Title : Pinkal Rajeshbhai Patel v. ITO
Case Number : ITA No. 99/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHA) 110
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 7 April 2026 quashed reassessment proceedings against taxpayer Pinkal Rajeshbhai Patel in a case involving alleged bogus loans. A Bench of Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra R. Kamble held that the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition on a completely different issue of alleged bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks.
ITAT Kolkata Remands ₹13.83 Crore Unsecured Loan Case, Flags Lack of Creditor Verification
Case Title : DCIT v. Anushikha Investments Private Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 360/KOL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 111
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 7 April 2026 held that additions under Section 68 cannot be deleted by the CIT(A) without allowing the Assessing Officer to verify the creditors and examine their directors, where the foundational facts regarding identity and genuineness remain untested. A Bench of Judicial Member George Mathan and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and remanded the matter involving Anushikha Investments Private Limited for assessment year 2016-17.
Case Title : Shri Bhumika Strips Private Limited v. ITO
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1362, 1363 & 1364/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHA) 112
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed the recomputation of additions made by tax authorities against a steel manufacturer after finding that the Assessing Officer treated certain sales as non-genuine primarily on the basis of cancellation of a buyer's VAT registration without verifying when that cancellation took place. “There is no verification by the Assessing Officer about the date of cancellation of the VAT registration by VAT department,” the tribunal recorded, noting that the addition was made based on information received from the investigation wing without proper verification.
Case Title : Assam Logistics v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No.4549/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHA) 113
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, directed deletion of a Rs. 1.05 crore addition on a partnership firm, holding that no addition could be made in the hands of a dissolved firm when the same receipts had already been offered to tax in the hands of the successor proprietorship. Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal observed, "no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee firm which has already been dissolved in preceding year for the contract receipts from M/s Maruti Suzuki India which are offered for tax by the surviving partnership Sh. Raja Singh in his proprietorship under the same name & style as M/s Assam Logistics. Any further addition for the same receipts in the hands of the assessee firm tantamount to double taxation of an income which is not permitted.”
Case Title : Amazon Retail India Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1
Case Number : ITA No. 3532/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 115
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Amazon Retail India Private Limited challenging a revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, holding that the assessing officer failed to conduct necessary enquiries in a case selected for complete scrutiny before accepting the return declaring a loss of Rs. 639.73 crore. A coram comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Amitabh Shukla held that the assessment order suffered from a complete lack of enquiry on issues for which the case was selected for scrutiny.
Depreciation Cannot Be Combined With Revival Of Original Cost For Indexation Benefit: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Shree Vaidehi Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 273/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHA) 114
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 21 April held that a taxpayer cannot claim depreciation on an asset in earlier years and thereafter seek to revive its original cost of acquisition to claim higher indexation benefits while computing capital gains on its sale. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha dismissed an appeal filed by Shree Vaidehi Impex Pvt Ltd for assessment year 2016–17 against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Cash Receipt In Agricultural Land Sale Not 'Unexplained' Where Duly Explained: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : Angad Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals), Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 5506/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 116
The New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 April, held that cash receipts arising from a duly evidenced agricultural land sale could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 where the identity of the payer, genuineness of the transaction, and supporting documentation were established. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member S Rifaur Rahman allowed the appeal filed by Angad Developers Pvt Ltd against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2016-17 and deleted the addition of Rs. 75 lakh.
ITAT Delhi Upholds Deletion Of ₹18.63 Crore, Says Direct Payment To Developer Not Unexplained Cash
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sachin Gaur
Case Number : ITA No. 7244/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 117
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 April upheld the deletion of an addition of Rs. 18.63 crore made against Sachin Gaur, an individual taxpayer, and held that payments made directly by subsequent buyers to a developer cannot be treated as unexplained money of the seller under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal held: “It is observed that while making the said addition A.O. failed to establish that the Assessee has been benefitted to the tune of Rs. 18,63,37,342/- in the said transaction.”
Mumbai ITAT Allows ₹13.59 Cr Write-Off On Overseas Subsidiary Investment As Business Loss
Case Title : ACIT v. Shreepati Build Infra Investment Limited
Case Number : ITA Nos. 6161 and 6160/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 118
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 April held that losses from investments and loans to a wholly owned foreign subsidiary, made for business expansion and commercial expediency, are deductible as business losses even if irrecoverable. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Narender Kumar Choudhry and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar further held that no proof of recovery efforts is required once the amount is written off in the books. It held: “The investment was not made with an intention to earn dividend or create a capital asset, but to facilitate business operations overseas.”
ITAT Chennai Expunges Direction To Reopen Assessments For Years Not Under Appeal
Case Title : Mr. Chandanmal Nagaraj v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 3855/CHNY/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 119
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has expunged a direction issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to reopen the earlier assessments of individual taxpayer Chandanmal Nagaraj, holding that such directions are beyond its powers. The coram comprising Judicial Member Manu Kumar Giri and Accountant Member Inturi Rama Rao passed the order on April 30, 2026. The case related to Assessment Year 2017–18. While granting relief for this year, the CIT(A) had also directed the Assessing Officer to reopen the individual taxpayer's assessments for AY 2015–16 and 2016–17.
Case Title : Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) v. Madras Motor Sports Trust
Case Number : ITA No. 2720/CHNY/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 120
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently reiterated that the principle of estoppel has no application in tax proceedings and appellate authorities can entertain new claims from taxpayers even if they were not made in the original return. “the law is well settled to the extent that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) is confined to the power of Assessing Officer alone. There are no fetters on the appellate authorities to entertain a new claim, because the principle of estoppel have no application in tax proceedings.”, the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Capgemini IT Solutions India Private Limited v. ACIT Circle-15(1)(2)
Case Number : ITA No. 1102/Mum/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 121
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Capgemini IT Solutions India Private Limited cannot be charged interest for delay in paying advance tax for the period before it started its business in October 2019. “The levy of interest under section 234C in respect of the instalments falling due prior to 17.10.2019 is not sustainable in law.”, it observed. The bench of Judicial Member Kavitha Rajagopal and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar passed the order on April 30, 2026, while allowing the company's appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Cash Deposits In Education Trust Account Not Taxable In Individual's Hands: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Deepak Gupta
Case Number : ITA No. 5276/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 122
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), on 30 April, held that cash deposits in a bank account of a separate legal entity cannot be taxed in an individual's hands merely because he is an authorised signatory, unless there is evidence establishing beneficial ownership or undisclosed income. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member Brajesh Kumar Singh dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 4,94,69,000 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Receipts From Capital Asset Transfer Cannot Be Taxed Under Residuary Head: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title : DCIT v. Dinesh Gulab Mirchandani
Case Number : ITA No. 692/Mum/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 123
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 30 April 2026 held that once a receipt is characterised as arising from the transfer of a capital asset, the tax authority cannot reclassify it under the residuary head of income merely because computation under the capital gains provisions is disputed or fails. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 27 November 2025, which had deleted an addition of Rs. 3.67 crore made under the head “Income from Other Sources”.
ITAT New Delhi Sets Aside Rejection Of Trust Registration Over Missing Irrevocability Clause
Case Title : Social Welfare Public Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
Case Number : ITA No. 304 & 305/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 124
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 30 April held that absence of an irrevocability clause in a Trust Deed is not, by itself, fatal to registration where the defect is subsequently cured and set aside the rejection of registration of a charitable Trust. A Bench of Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member Brajesh Kumar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Social Welfare Public Trust and set aside the orders dated 3 December 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi, rejecting registration under the Income Tax Act and consequent approval for tax-deductible donations.
NFAC Must Decide Appeal on Merits, Cannot Dismiss for Non-Prosecution: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Pritam Singh v. ITO Ward-3 Panipat
Case Number : ITA No. 677/DEL/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 125
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 30 April held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide it on merits under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal heard an appeal against the NFAC order dated 11 September 2025 for Assessment Year 2012-13 and condoned a delay of 53 days after accepting the taxpayer's explanation of illness supported by a medical certificate. It held: “The appeal should have been decided on merit as per the provision of the section 250 of the Act. The appeal was decided ex-parte without giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee.”
ITAT Mumbai Allows Deduction For Donation To PM Relief Fund Despite Being Part Of CSR
Case Title : Landmark Worldwide Breakthrough Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 1303/MUM/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 126
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, has allowed Landmark Worldwide Breakthrough Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to claim a deduction on its donation to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, even though the payment formed part of its CSR expenditure. The bench comprising Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Girish Agrawal held that such a claim cannot be denied merely because the donation was made to meet CSR obligations. The taxpayer had filed its return declaring a total income of Rs. 6.83 crore. It had incurred CSR expenditure, which it disallowed under Section 37(1), but separately claimed a deduction of Rs. 22.94 lakh under Section 80G for a donation to PMNRF.
ITAT Mumbai Holds Section 68 Applies Only to Fresh Credits, Deletes ₹1.20 Crore Addition
Case Title : Viking Technology & Trade Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 8514/Mum./2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 127
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 4 May held that additions under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be made in the absence of any fresh credit arising during the relevant previous year, and remanded the matter for fresh verification. A Bench comprising Accountant Member Bijayananda Pruseth and Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who had sustained an addition of Rs. 1.20 crore against Viking Technology & Trade Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Mumbai Restores Fees Regulating Authority Matter Pending Section 10(46) Notification Outcome
Case Title : Fees Regulating Authority v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 4865/Mum./2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 128
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 30 April held that the taxability of the Fees Regulating Authority cannot be conclusively decided while its application for notification under Section 10(46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 remains pending before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). A Bench comprising Accountant Member Bijayananda Pruseth and Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and set aside the impugned order.
ITAT Mumbai Upholds Deletion Of ₹11.11 Crore Disallowance On Related-Party Business Expenses
Case Title : DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai v. Riverside Industries Private Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 9523/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 130
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 7 May upheld deletion of a disallowance of Rs. 11.11 crore towards business development and business promotion expenses paid by a pharmaceutical company to related parties. A Bench of Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Riverside Industries Private Limited for Assessment Year 2017-18, holding that it could not adopt an inconsistent stand when it had accepted similar expenses and agreements in subsequent assessment years on identical facts.
Case Title : Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 5996/Mum./2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 131
Today, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that a taxpayer cannot be denied deduction for research and development (R&D) expenditure under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act merely for not separately filing Form 3CL during assessment proceedings, where the approval had already been transmitted to and was available with the Assessing Officer. Judicial Member Justice Sandeep Singh Karhai and Accountant Member Bijayananda Pruseth allowed the appeal filed by Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. and set aside the earlier orders, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for recomputation of the deduction in accordance with the DSIR-approved figures.
ITAT Mumbai Upholds Denial Of Tax Deduction On ₹25 Lakh Donation To Kisan Party Of India
Case Title : Mihir Bipinbhai Parekh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 1173/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year 2019-20)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 132
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the denial of a tax deduction claimed by a Mumbai chemical trader for a ₹25 lakh donation to the Kisan Party of India. The tribunal found several circumstances that cast doubt on whether the contribution was genuine. A bench of Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail and Accountant Member Bijayananda Pruseth noted that the taxpayer was a chemical trader with no apparent connection to a Bihar-registered political party claiming to work for agriculturists.
Genuine Sales Bar Full Disallowance Of Purchases From Entry Provider: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title : Hemantkumar Sumermal Bhansali v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 1568/MUM/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 133
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 7 May held that where sales are accepted as genuine and supported by invoices and delivery challans, the entire purchase amount cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier was found to be an accommodation entry provider. Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav held that only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be brought to tax and partly allowed an appeal filed by Mumbai-based steel trader Hemantkumar Sumermal Bhansali, proprietor of Pushpak Steel and Engineering Co.
Cash Deposits From Recorded Sales Cannot Be Taxed Again As Unexplained: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title : Raju Samsurat Yadav Vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kalyan
Case Number : ITA No. 6866/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 134
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 7 May observed that once sales are recorded in the books of account and offered as business turnover, the same amount cannot again be taxed as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Judicial Member Amit Shukla and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar were hearing an appeal filed by Raju Samsurat Yadav, an electronics trader operating through proprietary concerns SKS Enterprises and Omega Marketing.
Case Title : Lodha Developers Limited v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 7695/Mum/2025 & ITA No. 7875/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 135
On 13 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act does not apply to flats booked and allotted before the provision came into force, even if the sale deed is registered later. The provision deems stamp duty value as sale consideration for taxing real estate business transfers when it exceeds the declared price. Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant and Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee deleted an addition of Rs. 2.05 crore made by the Income Tax Department on Lodha Developers Limited.
Case Title : Catwalk Worldwide Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 6291/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 135
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently deleted a ₹36.54 crore tax addition made on share premium received by footwear company Catwalk Worldwide Ltd, holding that the tax department wrongly rejected the company's share valuation by comparing business projections with actual later performance “The Assessing Officer ought not to have disturbed the method adopted by assessee or cannot adopt the figures by replacing the projections with actual financials.”
ITAT Kolkata Upholds Interest Deduction On Loans Advanced On Commercial Expediency Grounds
Case Title : DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata v. South City Projects (Kolkata) Ltd.
Case Number : I.T.A. Nos. 94 & 1000/Kol/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 138
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 18 May upheld the deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure claimed by South City Projects (Kolkata) Ltd., holding that loans advanced to its subsidiary for overseas real estate projects were made on grounds of commercial expediency and qualified for deduction under the Income Tax Act. Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar and Judicial Member Pradip Kumar Choubey dismissed the Revenue's appeals for Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trent Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 5243/Mum/2025 and ITA No. 5167/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 137
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 22 April held that an assessing officer cannot invoke Rule 8D under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act without recording dissatisfaction with the taxpayer's suo motu disallowance. Judicial Member Sandeep Gosain and Accountant Member Girish Agrawal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed Trent Limited's appeal for Assessment Year 2016–17, holding that brand equity fees paid to Tata Sons Ltd. are deductible under Section 37(1).
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1(2) v. Lohitka Properties LLP
Case Number : ITA No. 6925 & 6926/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 140
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded to the Assessing Officer a tax dispute involving Lohitka Properties LLP's revised income computation for its “Montana” real estate project. The Tribunal held that the assessee's revised estimates and the Revenue's objections require detailed factual verification. A bench of Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee and Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant observed: “Neither the approach adopted by the Assessing Officer in outrightly rejecting the revised estimates nor the acceptance thereof by the learned CIT(A) without exhaustive verification fully sub-serves the ends of justice. The matter, therefore, warrants comprehensive factual verification so as to ascertain the correctness of the computation of profits under the POCM method adopted by the assessee.”
Case Title : Aspri Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. NFAC/DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 8396/MUM/2025 & ITA No. 8643/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 139
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that while taxpayers may file additional evidence at the appellate stage in appropriate cases, the appellate authority cannot rely on such fresh material without first giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it and respond. Referring to Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which governs admission of additional evidence before the appellate authority, a bench of Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee and Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant and observed: “Compliance with Rule 46A is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive safeguard intended to preserve fairness in adjudication.”
ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes ₹74.64 Lakh Addition After Waste Stock Discrepancy Was Adequately Explained
Case Title : Shakti Polyweave Private Limited v. Dy. CIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2403 & 2404/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 141
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a ₹74.64 lakh addition made against Shakti Polyweave Private Limited towards estimated gross profit. The tribunal held that the company had adequately explained the alleged discrepancy in wastage stock reported in its tax audit report and that rejection of its books of account was unjustified. The bench of Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta partly allowed the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, with the latter being partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Case Title : Pallavi Nileshbhai Shah v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No. 376/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 142
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a ₹28.92 lakh addition made against a taxpayer after finding that the Assessing Officer could not selectively treat only the year-end outstanding creditor balances as unexplained while accepting the rest of the same transactions as genuine. The bench of Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta and Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble observed: “The AO has not made addition of the entire credits on account of transaction carried out that the said parties, but, only of the outstanding balance of credit as at the end of the year, which means that he has partly accepted as genuine the credit which was repaid during the year while the balance he has treated ingenuine without assigning any reason for this distinctive treatment.”
Case Title : ARVR Education Society v. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)
Case Number : ITA No. 5300/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 143
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a ₹15.96 crore addition made against ARVR Education Societya charitable society after rejecting the tax department's claim that corpus donations received by the charitable society from four parties were unexplained cash credits rather than genuine voluntary contributions. A Delhi bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra framed the central issue as, “The first and foremost question which arises for the tribunal's apt adjudication herein is as to whether such a disallowance of corpus donation claim raised under section 11(1)(d) of the Act could attract section 68 unexplained cash credit additions or not.”
Case Title : Sham Sunder Dhingra v. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi
Case Number : ITA NO. 6191/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 144
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 26 May held that authorities cannot sustain additions under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act in the absence of recovery of unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles from the taxpayer, and cannot invoke the provision merely on the basis of digital material indicating alleged transactions. Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal partly allowed the appeal filed by Sham Sunder Dhingra for Assessment Year 2020–21 and directed the Assessing Officer to tax only 20% of the alleged commission receipts instead of treating the entire amount as unexplained income. The Bench stated that "..in the absence of any unexplained money or article, the provisions of section 69A cannot be invoked…”
ITAT Delhi Grants Relief To Welkin Industries, Holds Form 10-IC Delay Cannot Deny 115BAA Benefit
Case Title : Welkin Industries Private Limited v. ITO Ward 27(1)
Case Number : ITA No.8126/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 145
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 May held that a procedural delay in filing Form 10-IC cannot deny a taxpayer the benefit of the concessional 22% corporate tax regime under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Welkin Industries Private Limited against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Lucknow, for Assessment Year 2022-23, and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute its tax liability under Section 115BAA.
ITAT Mumbai Quashes Bang Overseas Reassessment, Holds PCIT Sanction Invalid Under Section 151(ii)
Case Title : Bang Overseas Limited v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 8930/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 146
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 May quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against Bang Overseas Limited, holding that the sanction for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 violated Section 151(ii) of the Act. Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar clarified that where authorities issue a notice after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, they must obtain approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and not from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).
Case Title : ITO v. First Class Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 7905/Del/2019
CITATION : 2026LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 147
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 May dismissed the Revenue's appeal against First Class Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and held that the Tax Department cannot force a taxpayer to adopt the Net Asset Value (NAV) method when the law permits valuation under the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for determining fair market value under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member M. Balaganesh upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and deleted the addition for Assessment Year 2015–16.
Case Title : Shri 108 Gupti Sagar Dham Jain Trust v. CIT (Exemption)
Case Number : ITA No.- 7551/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 148
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 May held that authorities cannot deny approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act to a trust or institution merely because it undertakes religious activities, so long as its expenditure on such activities does not exceed five per cent of its total income in the relevant year. Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member Brajesh Kumar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Shri 108 Gupti Sagar Dham Jain Trust and set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, which had rejected the trust's application for approval under Section 80G.
ITAT Delhi Remands Cargill India's Intra-Group Services TP Dispute To TPO
Case Title : Cargill India Private Limited v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3938/Del/2019 & 4033/Del/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 149
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded transfer pricing adjustments relating to intra-group services received by Cargill India Pvt. Ltd., after observing that the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of various services had been determined at nil without discussing the evidence produced by the taxpayer. A bench comprising Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and partly allowed cross-appeals filed by Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. and the Revenue for Assessment Year 2009-10.
Case Title : Baker Hughes Energy Technology UK Ltd. v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA No. 2081/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 150
On 27 May, the New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked to tax offshore supply receipts in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and deleted an addition of Rs.99.50 crore made against Baker Hughes Energy Technology UK Ltd. Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Renu Jauhri observed: “The burden of establishing existence of a PE rests upon the Revenue. Not a single piece of evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee had any kind of PE in India in the year under consideration.”
ITAT Bangalore Allows 80P Deduction On Interest Income Earned From Co-Operative Bank Deposits
Case Title : Hamdard Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Addl./JCIT (A)-2 & Anr.
Case Number : ITA No. 1873/Bang/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(BLR) 151
The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 20 May held that a co-operative credit society is entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act on interest income earned from deposits placed with co-operative banks, as the income remains attributable to its business of providing credit facilities to members. A single-member Bench comprising Vice-President Shri Prashant Maharishi also held that transactions with nominal members do not disentitle the society from claiming the deduction and allowed an appeal by Hamdard Co-operative Society Limited.
ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes ₹20 Crore+ 14A Disallowance Against Axis Bank, Bars Mechanical Use of Rule 8D
Case Title : Axis Bank Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Connected Appeals
Case Number : ITA No. 611 & 612/Ahd/2025 and ITA No. 563 & 564/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 152
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 20 May held that disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be made by mechanically invoking Rule 8D unless the Assessing Officer first records dissatisfaction with the taxpayer's own computation of expenditure relatable to exempt income. Judicial Member Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta allowed the appeal filed by Axis Bank Limited and directed deletion of the disallowance made under Section 14A.
FTS Receipts Of Thai Company Not Taxable Under India-Thailand DTAA's Residuary Clause: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Denso International Asia Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (International Taxation)
Case Number : ITA No. 3421/Del/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 153
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) received by Thailand-based Denso International Asia Co. Ltd. from its Indian group companies cannot be taxed in India under the residuary clause of the India-Thailand Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). A bench comprising Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Renu Jauhri allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2021-22 and deleted an addition of ₹17.28 crore made by the Assessing Officer.
Per Diem Received By EY Employee During UK Assignment Taxable Only In UK, Not India: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Sachin Saxena v. DCIT/ACIT (International Taxation), Noida
Case Number : ITA No. 4037/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 154
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a ₹17.25 lakh addition made in the hands of an employee deputed to the United Kingdom, holding that ₹16.17 lakh received as per-diem during the overseas assignment was taxable, if at all, in the UK and not in India. Per diem is a daily allowance received by the employee during the his UK assignment. A bench of Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Brajesh Kumar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Sachin Saxena for the assessment year 2017-18.
Case Title : PNB Housing Finance Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 6763/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 155
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief to PNB Housing Finance Ltd. by allowing its claim for deduction in respect of eligible CSR-related donations and deleting a ₹3.36 crore penalty imposed for accepting cash EMI repayments from borrowers. Geographic Reference A bench of Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra passed the order while deciding a batch of appeals filed by the housing finance company for assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21.
Case Title : Milacron India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 1696/Ahd/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 156
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 May held that tax authorities cannot deny a deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act merely because a company made the donation to fulfil its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) obligations. Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar partly allowed an appeal filed by Milacron India Private Limited for Assessment Year 2020-21 and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Case Title : Roquette India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : I.T.A. Nos. 102 & 366/Ahd/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 157
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 May held that tax authorities cannot determine the arm's length price (ALP) of intra-group services at nil merely on a subjective perception of benefit once the taxpayer proves receipt of services and substantiates them with evidence. Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar allowed an appeal by Roquette India Pvt. Ltd. and deleted transfer pricing adjustments for Assessment Years 2017–18 and 2018–19 arising from payments made towards Central Corporate and Area services, Global Business Unit services, and IT services received from associated enterprises.
ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes ₹3.88 Crore Transfer Pricing Adjustment, Upholds TNMM Consistency
Case Title : Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 1609/Ahd/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 158
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 May held that in the absence of any change in facts or functional profile, tax authorities must consistently follow transfer pricing positions accepted in earlier years, and deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3.88 crore in the case of Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. Geographic Reference Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar rejected the Revenue's attempt to replace the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with an internal Cost Plus Method (CPM).
ITAT Delhi Holds TDS Applicable On CAM Charges As They Are Maintenance Payments, Not Rent
Case Title : DCIT v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 7689, 7684 & 7687/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 159
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 May held that Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges paid by tenants in shopping malls constitute payments for maintenance services and not rent, and therefore attract Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act and not under Section 194-I. Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member Renu Jauhri dismissed Revenue's appeals against Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Years 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16, upholding the deletion of the tax demand.
Transfer Pricing Must Be Benchmarked Using AE Transactions, Not Entity-Level Profits: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Cornell Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 850/Del/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 161
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 2 June 2026 held that transfer pricing analysis must ordinarily be restricted to international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) where reliable segmental data is available, and cannot be extended to entity-level profitability. Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra partly allowed the appeal filed by Cornell Overseas Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2007–08 and remanded the transfer pricing issue to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for fresh consideration of comparables.
Registered Sale Deed Triggers Capital Gains Tax Even If Payment Is Delayed: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Mehboob Jabir Patel v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Godhra
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 523/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 160
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 June held that execution and registration of a sale deed complete “transfer” for capital gains taxation purposes, and that delayed payment or dishonour of cheques does not postpone taxability unless the transaction itself is cancelled. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar passed the order in an appeal filed by Mehboob Jabir Patel. The Bench, however, directed the Assessing Officer to grant consequential relief if the same capital gains had already been taxed in Assessment Year 2016-17, to avoid double taxation.
Case Title : Jet Lite (India) Ltd. v. ACIT/DCIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 4885 & 4886/Del/2011 and ITA Nos. 3330 & 3331/Del/2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 162
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of penalties exceeding ₹7.6 crore imposed on Jet Lite (India) Ltd. in a fringe benefit tax (FBT) dispute. The tribunal held that the assessee had sought to justify its case against the fringe benefit assessment and that this could not be treated as furnishing inaccurate particulars. A bench of Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeals against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting penalties for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Tribunal also dismissed Jet Lite's appeals against the fringe benefit tax assessments for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Case Title : IMAX Corporation v. ACIT (International Taxation)
Case Number : ITA No. 1934/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 164
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that IMAX Corporation, Canada, did not have either a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) or an installation/supervisory PE in India. The tribunal held that a five-day site inspection visit and subsequent installation activities lasting only 17 days did not satisfy the conditions prescribed under the India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Since no PE existed in India, the Tribunal held that no income could be attributed to the alleged PE.
Case Title : FireEye Ireland Limited v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 825/Del/2023 and 3701/Del/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 165
On 5 June, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that consideration received from the sale of standard cybersecurity software licences, subscriptions, and related support services does not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS), as FireEye Ireland Limited did not render any customised technical or consultancy services. Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Renu Jauhari partly allowed the appeals filed by FireEye Ireland Limited for Assessment Years 2020–21 and 2021–22.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Antriksh Group Assessments Over Mechanical Search Assessment Approval
Case Title : Antriksh Engineers Construction Corporation & Ors. v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA Nos. 8842 to 8846, 8851 to 8855, 8847 to 8850, 8856 to 8862 and 8911 & 8912/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 166
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently reiterated that approval required before search assessments are finalised must reflect independent application of mind and cannot be accorded mechanically through a common approval covering multiple assessees and assessment years. Holding that the approval granted in the present case suffered from non-application of mind, the Tribunal quashed assessments framed against various entities and individuals belonging to the Antriksh group.
Section 68 Addition Unsustainable Where Identity and Creditworthiness Are Proven: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : DCIT v. ANR International Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 5317/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 167
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 5 June held that an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained merely because share subscribers disclosed relatively low income in their income tax returns, where the taxpayer establishes their identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions. Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member Renu Jauhari dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision deleting a Rs. 3 crore addition made against ANR International Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Case Title : Ramatas Revathi v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No 4128/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 168
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a taxpayer cannot be denied the benefit of indexation on the cost of construction where details relating to the building are already available in the registered sale deed and form part of the material on record. A coram of Judicial Member Manu Kumar Giri and Accountant Member Gagan Goyal allowed an appeal filed by Ramatas Revathi.
Case Title : DCIT v. Excel Insurance Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1355 & 1356/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 169
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that, in the case of a person who was not subjected to a search, the relevant assessment block must be computed with reference to the date on which the jurisdictional Assessing Officer records satisfaction after receiving the seized material and not with reference to the date of the search conducted on a third party. A bench of Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra dismissed two appeals filed by the Revenue and affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had quashed assessments against Excel Insurance Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Case Title : Straumann Dental India LLP v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA No. 8894/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 170
On 10 June, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising from an unsigned and unregistered business transfer agreement. Judicial Member Madhumita Roy and Accountant Member Amitabh Shukla dismissed the appeal filed by Straumann Dental India LLP for Assessment Year 2017-18 and upheld the disallowance of depreciation of Rs 16.16 crore claimed on goodwill.
Case Title : Arvind Mevalal Panchal v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No. 2203/AHD/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 171
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Ahmedabad has held that a taxpayer who was aware of ongoing appellate proceedings cannot avoid the consequences of earlier non-compliance merely because the final notice was sent to a different email address. A division bench of Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Arvind Mevalal Panchal for statistical purposes against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19.
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle v. Gulbrandsen Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2281 & 2282/AHD/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 172
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that non-production of bills and vouchers could not be a valid reason to deny additional depreciation where the tax department had accepted the asset as plant and machinery and allowed normal depreciation on it. A division bench of Judicial Member T.R. Senthil Kumar and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha upheld the relief granted to Gulbrandsen Private Limited while deciding the Revenue's appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14.
Case Title : EBIXCASH World Money Limited v. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1)
Case Number : ITA No. 8607/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 173
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹76.45 crore made on interest paid by EBIXCASH World Money Limited on compulsorily convertible debentures (CCDs). The tribunal held that precedents consistently recognise CCDs as debt instruments and that interest paid on them cannot be disallowed by treating them as equity. “We find that the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is in fact covered by a series of decisions of Tribunal and High Courts wherein it is consistently held that CCDs cannot be treated as equity and interest in respect of CCD cannot be disallowed by TPO,” the tribunal observed.
SBI Not In Default For Not Deducting Tax On Leave Travel Claims Under HC Directions: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : State Bank of India v. Income Tax Officer & Anr.
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1338, 1339, 1392 and 1498/AHD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 174
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on Friday held that the State Bank of India could not be treated as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on Leave Fare Concession payments made to employees. The tribunal found that the bank had acted in accordance with binding interim directions of the Madras High Court. A bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary allowed four appeals filed by different SBI branches.
Following Earlier Rulings, ITAT Mumbai Allows DSIR-Unapproved R&D Expenditure As Business Deduction
Case Title : Manugraph India Limited v. ACIT Circle – 3(2)(1), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No. 7160/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 175
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed Manugraph India Limited to claim ₹22 lakh in research and development (R&D) expenditure as a business deduction. The amount had not been approved by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for weighted deduction. The tribunal followed earlier decisions that permitted such claims under the Income Tax Act.
Case Title : Rakesh Kumar v. ITO, Ward 58 (6)
Case Number : ITANo.5882/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 176
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a ₹5.60 crore addition made against a Delhi jeweller over cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The bench found that the source of the deposits was recorded in the taxpayer's audited books of account and that the related business income had already been assessed. The bench comprising Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman allowed the appeal filed by Rakesh Kumar, proprietor of R.V. Gold Hallmark.
Case Title : Mumbai Port Authority v. ACIT (Exemption), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA No. 2598/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 177
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Mumbai Port Authority's ₹80 crore contribution to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. under a leave encashment scheme is deductible, finding that the payment represented an actual outflow of funds rather than a mere provision for a future liability. A Bench of Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar observed: “The amount of Rs.80,00,00,000/- stands actually paid to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Receipt of which is place at page No. 60 of paper book) under a leave encashment scheme formulated for meeting employee benefit obligations. The payment has resulted in actual outflow of funds and the assessee has ceased to have control or dominion over the amount so contributed.”
Case Title : Nanne Gulzar & Company v. ACIT, Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3956/MUM/2025 & 3957/MUM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 178
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held on 15 June that the Revenue must assess additions arising from search material only under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act and cannot invoke the reassessment provisions under Sections 147/148. Geographic Reference Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar allowed the appeals filed by Nanne Gulzar & Company and set aside the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Department. The Bench held: “As per the scheme and object of section 153C r.w.s 153A, the AO has no discretion or choice to invoke the provisions of section 147/148 instead of section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act.”
Revenue Must Disclose Tally Data, Forensic Report Before Making Additions: ITAT Kolkata
Case Title : Kailash Kumar Patwari v. DCIT, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA Nos. 912 to 921/Kol/2025 and Connected Matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 179
On 16 June, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Revenue cannot rely on tally data and a forensic analysis report without confronting a taxpayer with those materials, as doing so constitutes a “grave violation of natural justice”. Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar and Judicial Member Pradip Kumar Choubey partly allowed Kailash Kumar Patwari's appeals for statistical purposes, dismissed the Revenue's appeals, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.
Cash Held By Chartered Accountant For Client Tax Payments Not Unexplained Income: ITAT Chennai
Case Title : Bose Saravanan v. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Tiruchirappalli
Case Number : ITA No. 2217/Chny/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 180
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 11 June held that a practising Chartered Accountant does not incur liability under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act merely because clients deposit cash into his bank account for payment of statutory dues, where the evidence shows he used the funds to remit taxes on their behalf. Judicial Member Aby T. Varkey and Accountant Member Padmavathy S allowed the appeal filed by Bose Saravanan and directed the Assessing Officer to delete additions exceeding Rs. 29.87 crore. The Bench held: "We see merit in the submission that the assessee has acted as a conduit for payment of taxes on behalf of the clients and that the deposits reflecting in the bank account of the assessee does not belong to the assessee."
Reassessment Without Section 143(2) Notice Lacks Jurisdiction, Cannot Be Sustained: ITAT Kolkata
Case Title : Star Tradecom Private Limited v. I.T.O Ward-9(1) Kolkata
Case Number : ITA No.52/KOL/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 181
On 16 June, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that reassessment proceedings initiated without issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act are void ab initio, as the requirement goes to the root of jurisdiction and cannot be treated as a curable procedural lapse. Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar and Judicial Member Pradip Kumar Choubey set aside the reassessment against Star Tradecom Private Limited and quashed the consequential revisionary proceedings initiated by the Commissioner under Section 263. The Bench held: “The issue of invalidity can be raised in the collateral proceedings by the assessee even though the order concerned passed by the authorities have not been challenged before the appellate authority”
Case Title : DDIT (IT) v. American Express Bank Ltd. & Standard Chartered Holdings Inc. (Successor of American Express Bank Ltd.)
Case Number : ITA No. 3487/Mum/2004
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 183
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that interest received by the Indian branch of American Express Bank from its Head Office and overseas branches is not taxable in India. The Tribunal found that the transactions were between different parts of the same entity and therefore attracted the principle that a person cannot make a profit from oneself. A bench of Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar was hearing cross-appeals relating to Assessment Year 1999-2000 involving American Express Bank, a non-resident banking company with a Permanent Establishment in India.
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chilles & Garlic Commission Co.
Case Number : I.T.A. No.6812/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 183
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of an addition made on alleged undisclosed sales in the case of Chilles & Garlic Commission Co. after finding that the Assessing Officer had wrongly treated consignment sales handled by the commission agent as the taxpayer's own turnover. A bench of Judicial Member Amit Shukla and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia observed that the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a misconceived understanding of the taxpayer's business. According to the Tribunal, consignment sales undertaken on behalf of consignors were incorrectly construed as the taxpayer's turnover.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Proceedings Against Indeed Fincap Over Common, Vague Satisfaction Note
Case Title : ACIT v. Indeed Fincap Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITANo.8096/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 185
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed assessment proceedings initiated against Indeed Fincap Pvt. Ltd. after finding that the tax department relied on a common satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without identifying assessment year-specific incriminating material. A coram of Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had set aside the assessment.
Case Title : Ashvinkumar Joitaram Patel v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No.1358/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 186
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Ahmedabad has held that findings recorded by an Assessing Officer in a remand report cannot be disregarded by the Commissioner (Appeals) without any material to the contrary. The court observed that where the Assessing Officer, after verification, accepted that a taxpayer's land had been used for agricultural purposes and that the conditions for claiming exemption were met, those findings could not be ignored without contrary evidence. A bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Ashvinkumar Joitaram Patel for the assessment year 2016-17.
ITAT Delhi Upholds ₹18 Lakh Tax Deduction Claim On Ernst & Young's CSR Donations
Case Title : DCIT v. Ernst & Young Services Private Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 1389/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 184
Ernst & Young Services Private Limited has succeeded before the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a dispute over a tax deduction claimed on donations made as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) spending. The tribunal dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal and upheld the deduction. A bench of Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal was considering the Department's challenge to relief granted to the company.
ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes ₹26.08 Lakh Addition Based Solely On Investigation Wing Information
Case Title : Income Tax Officer v. Amrat Mali
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 2003/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 187
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate tribunal has upheld the deletion of a ₹26.08 lakh addition made against a taxpayer. The tribunal held that an addition cannot be sustained solely on information received from the Investigation Wing without independent enquiry or corroborative evidence linking the taxpayer to the alleged transactions. A bench of Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra R. Kamble dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes ₹2.25 Crore Addition On Land Deal Registered In 2019, Notes 2009 Agreement
Case Title : Chhaya Divyesh Patel v. The Deputy Director of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No.290/AHD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 188
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has deleted a tax addition of about ₹2.25 crore made against a Vadodara taxpayer in a land transaction. The tribunal held that the assessing officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel were not justified in confirming the addition after documents showed that payments had been made before the property's registration. The bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble allowed the taxpayer's appeal.
OYO Share Premium From FOCC Investment Not Taxable Under S.56(2)(viib) Income Tax Act: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited v. DCIT, Circle 19(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 5718/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 189
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 4 June held that Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked to tax share premium received through a Foreign Owned and Controlled Company (FOCC) where the investment complies with India's foreign investment regulations, as such transactions cannot be treated as routing unaccounted money. Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Vimal Kumar allowed the appeal filed by OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited and deleted the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) for Assessment Year 2021-22, while deciding cross appeals arising from the assessment.
Dividend From Cooperative Societies Remains Deductible Despite Erroneous Claim: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : ACIT v. Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Bulandshahr
Case Number : ITA No. 7658/Del/2025 with C.O. No. 71/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 190
On 19 June, the New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that a bona fide claim made under an incorrect provision does not disentitle a taxpayer from claiming a deduction otherwise available in law, and that dividend income received from a co-operative society remains eligible for deduction even if it cites the wrong exemption provision. Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the cross-objection filed by Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Bulandshahr, holding that the Assessing Officer wrongly made the addition on the society.
Case Title : Gemological Institute International, Inc. v. DCIT (International Taxation)
Case Number : ITA No. 1290/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 191
On 19 June, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that a foreign company cannot be denied the benefit of a lower tax rate merely because no separate approval was obtained from the Central Government, where the transaction itself was permitted under the automatic route prescribed by the RBI. Judicial Member Beena Pillai and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia allowed the appeal filed by Gemological Institute International, Inc., noting that a taxpayer cannot be expected to obtain an approval which is not contemplated under the governing regulations.
ITAT Kolkata Remands Capital Gains Assessments Over Mandatory DVO Reference Under Section 50C(2)
Case Title : Tapan Das v. ITO, Ward-1(1), Siliguri
Case Number : ITA No. 2259/KOL/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 192
On 18 June, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded a capital gains assessment after holding that an Assessing Officer is duty bound to refer a property valuation dispute to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) when a taxpayer seeks such reference under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra was hearing an appeal filed by Tapan Das against an order upholding an addition of Rs. 63.52 lakh towards long-term capital gains arising from the sale of land.
ITAT Ahmedabad Holds Suspicion Cannot Replace Evidence, Strikes Down ₹38 Lakh & ₹10.5 Lakh Additions
Case Title : ACIT v. Shreenathji Extrusion
Case Number : IT(SS)A No.130/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 193
On 18 June, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that additions cannot be sustained merely on suspicion when a taxpayer furnishes complete documentary evidence. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble deleted additions of Rs. 38 lakh and Rs. 10.5 lakh made by the Income Tax Department against Shreenathji Extrusion. The Bench held: “There is no cash outflow of Rs. 10,50,000/- from the assessee to M/s. Balkrishana Metal, much less an unexplained investment within the meaning of Section 69 of the Act. The evidence that Rs.10,50,000/- inward receipt through RTGS which is in the custody of the Department itself proves that the assessee paid an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- to M/s. Balkrishna Metal”.
Revenue Cannot Sit In The Armchair Of Businessmen: ITAT Delhi Deletes ₹17.8 Lakh Addition
Case Title : Palco Tex Feb Limited v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : ITA No. 3141/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 194
Tax authorities cannot sit in the armchair of businessmen and decide how businesses should be run merely because operations have ceased, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held. The tribunal deleted an addition of nearly ₹18 lakh that the Income Tax Department had treated as unexplained cash credits after a company received funds from its directors, their relatives, and a company under the same management. Accountant Member Ramit Kochar, sitting as a single-member tribunal, partly allowed the appeal filed by Palco Tex Feb Limited.
TPO Cannot Ignore Documentary Proof Of Services And Fix ALP At Nil: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Schaeffler India Ltd.
Case Number : I.T.A. No.2215/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 195
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), on 6 June, held that once a taxpayer demonstrates actual receipt of management services through documentary evidence, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot disregard the transaction and fix the Arm's Length Price (ALP) at nil based merely on assumptions of commercial necessity. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Schaeffler India Ltd. and upheld deletion of transfer pricing adjustments aggregating to approximately Rs. 11.59 crore.
Case Title : Jitendra Motilal Chawla v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : I.T.A. No.116/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 196
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that in reassessment proceedings involving unexplained foreign remittances, additional evidence relating to a taxpayer's overseas residency status and foreign business activities must be examined where it goes to the root of the controversy. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal set aside the assessment in Mr. Jitendra Motilal Chawla's case and restored the matter to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for reconsideration.
Mere Client Code Modification Not Enough To Invoke S.68 On Entire Transaction Value: ITAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dharmdeep Commodities Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : I.T.A. Nos.1966&1967/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 197
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Department cannot treat the entire value of commodity transactions routed through alleged client code modifications as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of material showing that the taxpayer benefited from accommodation entries. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal upheld relief granted to Dharmdeep Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and ruled that the authorities can tax only the profit element embedded in such transactions, not the entire transaction value.
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Biharibhai Gokalbhai Patel
Case Number : I.T.A. No.235/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 198
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Ahmedabad has upheld the deletion of additions made against a taxpayer after finding that documentary evidence showed the disputed property investments were made in an earlier financial year and not during the assessment year under consideration. A bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
ITAT Ahmedabad Holds Form 26AS Mismatch Alone Insufficient For Addition, Restores ₹42.34 Lakh Issue
Case Title : Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 1696/Ahd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 199
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 17 June held that a mismatch between revenue reflected in Form 26AS and a taxpayer's books of account does not, by itself, justify an addition, and that such discrepancies require a proper reconciliation exercise before any addition can be sustained. Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary allowed the appeal filed by Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd for statistical purposes and remanded the Rs. 42.34 lakh addition to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after reconciliation.
Case Title : LANXESS India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-1, Thane
Case Number : ITA No.6627/Mum/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 200
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹61.22 crore. The tribunal held that a pending appeal before the Bombay High Court does not dilute the binding nature of an earlier coordinate bench decision unless it has been stayed or reversed by a superior judicial forum. A bench of Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee and Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant and passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by LANXESS India Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Ahmedabad Condones 388-Day Delay In Appeal, Cites Poor Advice From Tax Consultant
Case Title : Shree Nathubhai Sa Vjibhai Desai College of Education v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1
Case Number : ITA Nos. 523 & 798/AHD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 201
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Ahmedabad has recently condoned a 388-day delay in filing an appeal by an educational institution. The tribunal found that the delay was caused by inadequate legal advice from its previous tax consultant and a bona fide belief that no further compliance was required. A bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary set aside orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed through the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).
ITAT Ahmedabad Upholds Relief To Adani Total Gas, Says No Exempt Income No Section 14A Disallowance
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Adani Total Gas Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 785/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 202
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 22 June reiterated that no disallowance can be made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act where the taxpayer has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the deletion of a Rs. 2.38 crore disallowance made against Adani Total Gas Ltd. for Assessment Year 2020-21.
ITAT Restores Appeal As Assessee Receives Order Intimation Belatedly, Accepts Envelope As Proof
Case Title : Sudipta Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA No. 465/KOL/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 203
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 22 June held that an appeal cannot be dismissed as time barred if filed within the statutory period computed from the date of service of the order. Courts & Judiciary Judicial Member George Mathan and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra set aside an Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that had dismissed an appeal by Sudipta Traders Pvt. Ltd. without examining merits, and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
Loan To Non-Shareholder Company Not Taxable As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(e): ITAT Kolkata
Case Title : JHV Steels Ltd. v. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA No. 1274/KOL/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 204
On 22 June, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that a loan received by a company cannot be taxed as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act merely because it has a common shareholder with the lending company, where the borrowing company itself is not a shareholder. Judicial Member George Mathan and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra partly allowed JHV Steels Ltd.'s appeal against an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and set aside the Principal Commissioner's revision on the deemed dividend issue.
ITAT Kolkata Restores Appeal Over CPC Notice Sent To Former Consultant, Condones 1,542-Day Delay
Case Title : Angkur Moulik v. ITO, Ward-1(1), Siliguri
Case Number : ITA No. 3124/KOL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 205
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 22 June held that authorities must condone delay where sufficient cause exists, particularly when tax communications are addressed to a former authorised representative and the taxpayer establishes lack of actual knowledge. Judicial Member George Mathan and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra allowed the appeal filed by Angkur Moulik, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], and restored the matter for adjudication on merits after condoning a delay of 1,542 days.
Case Title : The Bank of Nova Scotia v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Connected Matters
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3159/Mum/2004, 7158/Mum/2004, 2285/Mum/2005 and connected appeals & cross-objections
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 206
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, has recently held that interest income earned by a foreign bank from foreign currency loans extended to Indian corporates is taxable on a gross basis. It ruled that such income cannot be reduced by attributing expenditure before the concessional rate of tax is applied. The bench of President Justice C.V. Bhadang and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav held that the provisions of Section 115A of the Income Tax Act require interest income earned by a foreign company from foreign currency loans to be taxed on a gross basis, without allowing any deduction for related expenditure.
ITAT Delhi Says Computation Of Mandatory Interest Must Be Examined Before Dismissing Appeal
Case Title : Diamond Piston and Rings Ltd. v. ACIT
Case Number : ITA No. 1421/Del/2026 (AY 2012-13)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 207
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that while the levy of interest under the Income Tax Act is statutory and mandatory, an appeal challenging its computation cannot be dismissed without examining the issue on merits. A coram of Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member Ramit Kochar ruled, “There is no dispute that the interest is statutory and mandatory, but working /computation could be subject to challenge, if the assessee is so aggrieved, which then need to be worked out as per mandate of the 1961 Act. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without checking the computation of working of interest u/s 234A and 234B.”
ITAT Delhi Deletes ₹1.23 Crore Addition To Borrower's Income Over Lender's Low-Declared Income
Case Title : Florence Nightingale Educational Society v. DCIT
Case Number : ITA No. 5586/Del/2025 (AY 2017-18)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 208
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Delhi has recently reiterated that a lender's low declared income, by itself, is not sufficient to reject its creditworthiness for advancing an unsecured loan. Allowing the appeal of Florence Nightingale Educational Society, the tribunal observed that the relevant test is the lender's ability to arrange funds and not merely its earning capacity. Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman allowed the appeal filed by Florence Nightingale Educational Society.
ITAT Ahmedabad Quashes Reassessment Against Tipsons Stock Brokers, Deletes ₹1.33 Crore Disallowance
Case Title : Tipsons Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Case Number : ITA No. 1416/Ahd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(AHM) 209
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently quashed reassessment proceedings against Tipsons Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. It held that the Income Tax Department reopened the assessment solely by re-examining material already on record. The tribunal also deleted a disallowance of about ₹1.33 crore made against the company. A bench of Vice President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary observed that the conditions for reopening an assessment beyond four years were not met. It found no failure by the company to fully and truly disclose material facts.
Brilliant Study Centre Faculty Are Independent Professionals, Not Employees For TDS: ITAT Cochin
Case Title : Brilliant Study Centre Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward TDS, Kottayam
Case Number : S.A. No. 37/Coch/2026 & ITA No. 545/Coch/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(COC) 211
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Cochin has recently held that faculty members engaged by Brilliant Study Centre Pvt. Ltd., a well-known Kerala coaching institute that prepares students for NEET, JEE, and other medical and engineering entrance examinations, were independent professionals and not employees. It consequently set aside a demand of Rs. 9.48 lakh raised against the institute after the Income Tax Department treated it as an assessee in default for allegedly short-deducting tax at source.
Case Title : Maan Steel & Power Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1167, 2354, 1096 & 2609/KOL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(KOL) 210
The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), on 26 June held that where reassessment is initiated on the basis of material seized during a third-party search conducted prior to 1 April 2021, the Income Tax Department must proceed under the special search assessment provisions and cannot invoke Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accountant Member Rajesh Kumar allowed the appeals filed by Maan Steel & Power Ltd. for assessment years 2018–19 and 2019–20 and dismissed the Revenue's cross appeals as infructuous, while quashing the reassessment proceedings.
Case Title : Stargate Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai
Case Number : ITA No. 1396/CHNY/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(CHE) 212
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 26 June held that a penalty under Section 271B for failure to furnish a tax audit report cannot be sustained where the taxpayer acted under a bona fide belief that the audit requirement did not apply. Vice President George George K and Accountant Member Gagan Goyal allowed the appeal filed by Stargate Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and deleted the penalty of Rs.1.5 lakh imposed under Section 271B for failure to furnish a tax audit report under Section 44AB.
Case Title : Emdarapu Kumaraswamy v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad
Case Number : ITA No. 1441/Hyd/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(HYD) 213
The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 June held that winnings taxable under Section 115BB of the Income Tax Act must be computed on the basis of net winnings from online games and not on gross amounts reflected by gaming platforms. Vice President Vijay Pal Rao and Accountant Member Manjunatha G partly allowed the appeal filed by Emdarapu Kumaraswamy and set aside the addition made towards alleged online gaming winnings and remanded the issue relating to disallowance of deductions.
ITAT Hyderabad Quashes Penalty U/S 271DA Income Tax Act, Finds No Proof Of Section 269ST Violation
Case Title : Shreemukh Realtors v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA Nos. 1021 to 1024/Hyd/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(HYD) 214
On 24 June, the Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside penalties imposed on Shreemukh Realtors under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, holding that the Revenue failed to prove, with cogent evidence, any contravention of Section 269ST relating to alleged cash receipts exceeding Rs. 2 lakh. Vice President Vijay Pal Rao and Accountant Member Manjunatha G allowed the appeals against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had upheld penalties for assessment years 2020–21 to 2023–24.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Interest On Motor Accident Compensation To Be Tax-Free Under Budget Proposal
Interest received on compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals may soon be taken out of the income-tax net. While presenting the Union Budget 2026–27, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a proposal to exempt such interest from tax and remove the requirement of tax deduction at source.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes Penalty Relief, Decriminalisation And Litigation Reduction In Income Tax Law
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday proposed wide-ranging changes to the income tax penalty and prosecution framework, including immunity schemes, decriminalisation of certain offences and procedural measures to reduce litigation. Presenting her direct tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “Multiplicity of proceedings are a hindrance to the ease of doing business.” She proposed to “integrate assessment and penalty proceedings by way of a common order for both.”
Budget 2026–27 Keeps Income Tax Slabs And Standard Deduction Unchanged
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Sunday presented her ninth Union Budget since taking charge in 2019, keeping income tax slabs under the new tax regime unchanged from changes made last year
Union Budget 2026–27: Buyback Proceeds To Be Taxed As Capital Gains, Promoters Face Additional Levy
The Union Budget 2026–27 has introduced a significant reform in the taxation of share buybacks by shifting the tax incidence to shareholders and aligning buyback income with the capital gains framework. Under the new proposal, proceeds received by all categories of shareholders, including retail investors, institutional investors, and foreign shareholders from share buybacks will be taxed as capital gains, instead of being subject to a separate buyback distribution tax at the company level. This marks a departure from the earlier regime, where companies had to bear the tax burden and shareholders largely received tax-exempt income.
Budget 2026-27: Centre Proposes MCA–CBDT Panel To Integrate ICDS Into IndAS
The Union Budget of 2026 has proposed the constitution of a Joint Committee of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to incorporate the requirements of the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) into the Indian Accounting Standards (IndAS).
Budget Proposes 14% Minimum Alternate Tax Final Levy For Companies Opting New Regime From April 2026
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday proposed changes to the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime applicable to companies, to take effect from April 1, 2026, alongside the implementation of the Income Tax Act, 2025. Presenting the budget, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “I propose to make Minimum Alternate Tax a final tax for companies opting for the new tax regime.”
Union Budget 2026: FM Proposes Major Income Tax Changes
Presenting the Union Budget 2026, the Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman proposed the replacement of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a new Income Tax Act, 2025, to come into force from April 1, 2026, alongside a series of reforms to the direct-tax regime. The Finance Minister said a comprehensive review of the six-decade-old law, announced in July 2024, had been completed in record time. Simplified Income Tax Rules and new return forms will be notified shortly, with the stated objective that “ordinary citizens can comply without difficulty”.
Any Delay In Income Tax Audit Report May Attract ₹75,000 Late Fee, Proposes Finance Bill 2026
A single day's delay in furnishing a tax audit report may attract a fee of ₹75,000 under the proposed Income-tax Act, 2025, as per the scheme set out in the Finance Bill, 2026. Under the existing law, failure to comply with tax audit requirements attracted a penalty linked to turnover, capped at ₹1.5 lakh, and the penalty could be waived if the taxpayer showed a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Budget 2026-27: No TAN Needed For Resident Buyers To Deduct TDS On Property Purchases From NRIs
As per a proposal in the Union Budget 2026 tabled by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman today, resident individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) purchasing immovable property from a non-resident (NRI) will no longer be required to obtain a Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number (TAN) for the purpose of deducting tax at source. Instead, the tax deducted can be deposited using the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the buyer.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes Tax Relief On Compensation Received For Compulsory Land Acquisition
In the Union Budget 2026, the Finance Minister has proposed to exempt income in respect of any award or agreement arising from the compulsory acquisition of land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) from income tax, with effect from Assessment Year 2026–27. Under the existing framework, Schedule III of the Income-tax Act provides certain exemptions in respect of capital gains, but does not expressly cover all forms of compensation received on the compulsory acquisition of land.
Budget 2026-27 Introduces One-Time Disclosure Scheme For Small Taxpayers' Undisclosed Foreign Assets
The Union Budget 2026 has introduced the Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme, 2026 through the Finance Bill, 2026. The scheme proposes to offer a one-time opportunity for eligible taxpayers to come forward and declare undisclosed foreign assets or foreign income. On making a valid declaration and payment, taxpayers can obtain immunity from penalty and prosecution under the Black Money law.
The Union Budget 2026 has proposed an income-tax exemption for foreign companies supplying capital goods, equipment, or tooling to Indian electronic goods manufacturers operating in customs bonded warehouses under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. At present, Section 11 read with Schedule IV of the Income-tax Act specifies categories of income that are excluded from the total income of eligible non-residents, foreign companies, and specified persons.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes 12-Month Window From Assessment Year End To File Revised Income Tax Returns
As per the proposals in the Union Budget 2026–27, the government has proposed extending the time limit for filing a revised income tax return from the existing nine months to twelve months from the end of the relevant assessment year. At present, the deadlines for filing a belated return under Section 139(4) and a revised return under Section 139(5) coincide, both expiring nine months from the end of the relevant assessment year. As a result, taxpayers who file a belated return towards the end of the permitted period do not get an opportunity to revise their return.
CBDT Issues Draft Income Tax Rules And Forms For New Act With 34% Fewer Rules
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has released the draft Income Tax Rules, 2026 along with the draft forms, in connection with the Income Tax Act, 2025, which is scheduled to come into force from April 1, 2026. The draft rules and forms have been placed in the public domain to invite comments and suggestions from stakeholders and the general public. As per the CBDT, the draft Income Tax Rules, 2026 will remain open for public feedback for a period of 15 days, up to February 22, 2026.
CBDT Issues Draft Income Tax Rules 2026 Navigator Mapping Existing Rules To New Framework
With the Income Tax Act, 2025 set to come into force on 1 April 2026, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has released the Draft Income Tax Rules, 2026 for public consultation. To assist stakeholders in navigating the transition, the CBDT has also published an official navigator that maps each of the 333 draft rules to their corresponding provisions under the existing Income Tax Rules, 1962, which currently comprise 511 rules.
Central Bank Digital Currencies Not 'Relevant Crypto-Assets' For CRS Reporting: CBDT
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has amended the Income Tax Rules, 1962, to clarify that Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) will not fall within the definition of “relevant crypto-assets” for Common Reporting Standard (CRS) framework. The amendment forms part of the Income-tax (Amendment) Rules, 2026 notified on March 5, 2026 and the changes introduce new definitions and reporting provisions relating to crypto-assets, electronic money products and digital currencies under the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) framework.
CBDT Notifies 2026 Income Tax Rules Introducing 'Tax Year' System, Streamlines Compliance Framework
Today, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) notified the Income Tax Rules, 2026, which will come into force from 1 April 2026. The draft rules were published on 9 February 2026 for public consultation, inviting suggestions and feedback. The rules establish the procedural framework for implementing the Income Tax Act, 2025, which repeals the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Launches PRARAMBH 2026, Unveils Income Tax Website 2.0
Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Friday (March 20) launched the Income Tax Department's nationwide outreach campaign 'PRARAMBH 2026' in New Delhi and also inaugurated the revamped Income Tax Website 2.0 as part of efforts to prepare taxpayers for the new Income Tax Act, which will come into force from April 1, 2026. The upgraded e-filing portal has been designed to provide improved usability, simpler navigation, and more efficient service delivery to taxpayers as part of the department's ongoing digital transformation initiatives.
The Income Tax Department has clarified that the proposed 12% surcharge in the Finance Bill, 2026 will apply only to the additional income-tax payable by promoters on capital gains arising from buybacks, and not on the entire gains. In a clarification issued on March 26, 2026, the Department explained that the amendment relates to taxation of capital gains earned by promoters when companies buy back their own shares under section 68 of the Companies Act, 2013, which governs share buybacks.
CBDT Clarifies Principal Commissioner Can Condone Delay In Filing Form 10A
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has clarified that the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax may condone delay in filing Form 10A for registration of trusts and institutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Board issued the clarification through Circular No. 01/2026 dated 23 March 2026 to resolve ambiguity regarding the competent authority to condone such delay.
Income Tax Dept. Releases ITR-1, ITR-4 Utilities 45 Days After Court Indicated April 1 Timeline
Despite a judicial direction that income tax return filing utilities be made available from April 1 every year, the Income Tax Department on Friday (May 15) released the ITR-1 and ITR-4 utilities for Assessment Year 2026-27, formally opening the return filing season for salaried taxpayers and small businesses. The utilities for ITR-1 (Sahaj) and ITR-4 (Sugam) were made available on the Income Tax Department's e-filing portal, allowing eligible taxpayers to begin preparing and filing returns for income earned during Financial Year 2025-26 corresponding to Assessment Year 2026-27.
FIIs, BIS Get Income Tax Exemption On Government Securities Under New Income Tax Ordinance
Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) will be exempt from income tax on interest earned from government securities and capital gains arising from their sale, exchange, or transfer under amendments introduced by the Centre through the Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026. The ordinance, published in the Gazette on June 5, amends Schedule IV of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and is deemed to have come into force from April 1, 2026.