LiveLawBiz Direct Tax Monthly Digest: April 2026
Kapil Dhyani
2 May 2026 10:09 AM IST
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.”
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
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.
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
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 : Capgemini 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."
Delhi HC
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 a 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.
Gujarat HC
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.
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh HC
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
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
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.
Madras HC
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.
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 : 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.”
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
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.