LiveLawBiz Direct Tax Monthly Digest: August 2026
Kapil Dhyani
4 Sept 2026 9:39 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VS M/S STAR CRUISES (INDIA) P. LTD.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 3334-3336/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 259
The Supreme Court has recently ruled that hospitality and entertainment offered on board a cruise do not alter the essential nature of the activity as the carriage of passengers under the Income Tax Act. Ruling on the applicability of the presumptive taxation regime for non-resident shipping companies under Section 44B, the court observed that ancillary services provided during a voyage do not take the operation outside the scope of the provision. A bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria was hearing the revenue's challenge to the Bombay High Court's ruling extending the benefit of Section 44B to the foreign cruise operator Superstar Libra Ltd. (SLL).
Case Title : MERCHANT NAVY OFFICERS AND LADIES ASSOCIATION (MNOLA) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1059/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 285
The Supreme Court on 21 August directed the Union of India to sympathetically consider representations filed by Merchant Navy Officers and Ladies Association (MNOLA) seeking a 60-day tax exemption for Indian seafarers who remained in India for more than 182 days during the COVID-19 pandemic. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on merits and directed the Union to take an appropriate decision within four weeks.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi HC Ruling On GoDaddy Domain Fees Under India-US DTAA
Case Title : ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GODADDY.COM
Case Number : 45711/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order holding that payments received by GoDaddy.com LLC from Indian customers towards domain-name registration services are not chargeable to income tax in India under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli after hearing the parties, refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : B.L. Agro Industries Limited, Bareilly Thru. Mr. Amit Kumar Authorised Signatory v. Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Govt. of India New Delhi Thru. Secy. and others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 77 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 63
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that the period of 18 months for deciding a settlement application under Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, begins to run when the application first stands allotted to an Interim Board for Settlement and does not begin afresh when the Central Board of Direct Taxes later transfers the application from one Interim Board to another. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held “The argument of the respondents if accepted, would result in an extension of the statutory period of 18 months on each allotment/transfer from one IBS to the other.” “This argument, in our view, is not sustainable as the period prescribed under Section 245D(4A)(iii) cannot be extended once the Interim Board takes cognizance of the interim application pending before it.”
Case Title : Siddhant Rastogi v. Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue And 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 949 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 65
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that objections to a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel as well as the Assessing Officer and that filing them before the Assessing Officer alone will not do. It held that where no objections are filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer may finalise the assessment on the basis of the draft order itself.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Income Tax Authorities Can Condon Delay Despite CBDT Time Limit: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s sri Vani Educational Society v. The Assistant Commissioner and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 3499/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 48
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that tax authorities cannot reject an application for condonation of delay merely because it was filed beyond the time limit prescribed by a CBDT circular. The court held that the authorities have discretion under the Income Tax Act to consider genuine hardship while deciding such applications. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar observed that Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act allows tax authorities to accept certain exemption, deduction, refund, or other claims even after the prescribed deadline where doing so would help avoid genuine hardship.
Bombay HC
Bombay High Court Pulls Up ITAT Over Failure To Pronounce Reserved Judgments Within 90-Day Deadline
Case Title : Rajesh R. Hemrajani v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 10271 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 428
The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) over the repeated practice of releasing matters reserved for judgment without pronouncing orders. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed that Rule 34(5)(c) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, requires the tribunal to pronounce its judgment within 60 days of concluding the hearing and, in exceptional circumstances, within a further period of 30 days.
Co-Operative Banks Need Not Deduct TDS On Interest Paid To Co-Operative Societies: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Citizen Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Borivali) Vs The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Mumbai
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2533 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 438
The Bombay High Court has ruled that co-operative banks are not required to deduct Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on interest paid on fixed deposits held by another co-operative society, holding that the exemption for such payments continues to apply. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe interpreted Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, which exempts certain categories of interest payments from TDS. The dispute before the bench was whether the exemption available when one co-operative society pays interest to another continues to apply even where the payer is a cooperative bank.
Case Title : Sedemac Mechatronics Limited v. Department of Scientific & Industrial Research & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2654 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 452
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an application for the DSIR's report on eligible in-house R&D expenditure (Form 3CL) cannot be treated as delayed where the company had submitted the required audit report (Form 3CLA) within the deadline for filing its income tax return. “It must therefore be accepted that uploading of Form 3CLA by an Assessee to its e-filing account on the website of the Income Tax Department, on or before the due date of filing of the Return of Income, satisfies the requirement of Rule 6(7A)(c),” the court observed.
Taxpayer Cannot Be Denied TDS Credit For Deductor's Failure To Deposit Tax: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Manohar Ramabtar Jhunjhunwala v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2063 of 2025 and connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 473
The Bombay High Court on 5 August held that TDS credit cannot be denied to a taxpayer merely because the person who deducted the tax failed to deposit it with the Central Government, once actual deduction of tax from the income or payment is established. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the default of the deductor cannot prejudice the deducted and directed the Income Tax Department to verify claims and grant TDS credit where actual deduction is established.
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Against Royal Chains, Says 'Reason To Suspect' Not Enough
Case Title : Royal Chains P Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central 3(3) & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1714 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 478
The Bombay High Court on 24 August quashed an Income Tax reassessment notice issued to jewellery manufacturer Royal Chains Pvt Ltd for Assessment Year 2016-17. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Farhan P. Dubash noted that a completed Income Tax assessment cannot be reopened merely on the basis of suspicion about an investor's background, without material having a direct nexus with the particular transaction and the alleged escapement of income.
Calcutta HC
ITAT Cannot Automatically Confirm Adverse Order For Non-Payment Of Costs: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Ajitnath Suppliers Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kolkata And Ors.
Case Number : ITAT 120 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 194
The Calcutta High Court on 7 August held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot make payment of costs a condition for continuation of an appeal or direct that non-payment would automatically revive or confirm an adverse appellate order. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar clarified that while the ITAT can impose costs for procedural lapses, such costs cannot be made a condition precedent to a litigant's statutory right to have an appeal adjudicated, particularly where the Tribunal itself has found a violation of natural justice.
Chhattisgarh HC
Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Plea Against ₹19.75 Lakh Property Tax Demand On Loyola School
Case Title : Madhya Pradesh Jesuits v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Case Number : WPT No. 12 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 23
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Madhya Pradesh Jesuits challenging property tax demand notices of around Rs. 19.75 lakh raised against Loyola Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that the school could not claim property tax exemption based on a Section 12A registration certificate, which is required for eligible educational institutions to claim the exemption. The certificate, however, was issued in favour of “The President, Madhya Pradesh Jesuits, Kunkuri P.O., Raigarh Distt.
Case Title : Smt. Uma Kshatri v. Hari Ram Sahu & Ors.
Case Number : MAC No. 1431 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 24
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 20 August held that income tax need not be deducted while calculating motor accident compensation if the deceased's income falls within the Rs. 5 lakh limit eligible for rebate under Section 87A of the Income Tax Act. Courts & Judiciary Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decision not to deduct tax from the deceased's annual income of Rs. 4,34,970, including 50% towards future prospects, and dismissed his mother's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Red Bull Racing Limited (and batch)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8366/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 778
The Delhi High Court has framed an additional question for consideration in a batch of income tax petitions involving Formula One racing teams, including Red Bull Racing Limited and Atlassian Williams. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta would examine "Whether the Authority for Advance Ruling, which is enjoined upon to decide questions of law, as provided under Section 245N of the Income Tax Act of 1961, can decide as to whether an entity is having a permanent establishment in India, given that the fact about the existence of permanent establishment is a transaction based fact-finding exercise?"
Case Title : S.C.Sehgal v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4297/2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 781
The Delhi High Court has closed a 19-year-old writ petition challenging an order directing a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, holding that the proceedings had become infructuous since the audit had already been completed. Petitioner had challenged an order dated March 30, 2006, by which the assessing officer had directed a special audit. The writ petition was instituted in 2007, and notices were issued on May 30 that year, without any interim stay.
Delhi High Court Asks Income Tax Department To Explain 13-Year Delay In Releasing Seized Jewellery
Case Title : Shally Thapar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10592/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 790
The Delhi High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to file a “comprehensive affidavit” explaining the 13-year delay in releasing jewellery seized from an assessee. The Department informed the Court that the jewellery had now been released and assured that the balance refundable amount, along with applicable interest, would be paid within four weeks. However, the Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta sought to know from the Assessing Officer, the reasons for the delay not only from the date when he joined office (21.05.2025) but also for the period prior thereto.
Case Title : Aakash Goel v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Union Government and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on a public interest litigation seeking an automatic mechanism to refund Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) to individuals whose income falls below the taxable limit without requiring them to file income tax returns (ITRs). A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued notice on the petition filed by petitioner-in-person Aakash Goel and directed the respondents to file their reply. The matter will next be heard in October.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 v. M/S Etawah Chakeri (Kanpur) Highway Private Limited
Case Number : ITA 160/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 803
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot act as an economist to determine the expected rate of return while examining a company's share valuation. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta added that while the AO may identify flaws in the valuation methodology adopted by a taxpayer, he cannot substitute the commercial assumptions underlying a recognized valuation method with his own.
Case Title : Delhi Tax Bar Association Through Its Secretary K G Bansal v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9365/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 805
The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Private Secretaries of Supreme Court and High Court judges who have filed their income tax returns under the new tax regime to furnish their PAN Card details. The Court had also directed furnishing other details like assessment year, date of filing and Acknowledgment Number (of Return) to the Income Tax Department, to ensure that their returns are not processed pending adjudication of a plea concerning the tax treatment of judicial allowances.
S.147A Income Tax Act Challenge: Delhi High Court Orders Status Quo On Recovery, Penalty Proceedings
Case Title : Neena Wadhwa v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-18 & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12166/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 816
The Delhi High Court has directed that the status quo be maintained on recovery and penalty proceedings against two assessees who have challenged the constitutional validity of the newly inserted Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which retrospectively clarifies the role of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) in reassessment proceedings. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta passed the direction while allowing applications filed by Neena Wadhwa and Surender Kumar Wadhwa to amend their pending writ petitions in terms of directions issued by the Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Over Non-Supply Of Material To Taxpayer
Case Title : Kumar Santosh v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11466/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 824
The Delhi High Court has stayed reassessment proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the assessee submitted that the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer (AO) had not been supplied to him. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta issued notice to the Income Tax Department and stayed further proceedings pursuant to notice dated June 29. Reassessment proceedings had been initiated in relation to insurance commission amounting to Rs. 90,64,748 received by the Petitioner from IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside ITAT's Ex-Parte Order Against AAI Over Non-Service Of Hearing Notice
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v. DCIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA 499/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 825
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot decide an appeal ex-parte without first ensuring that notice of the hearing has been issued and served on the concerned party. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta allowed an appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and set aside the ITAT's order, which had disposed AAI's appeal on merits in its absence. The Court observed that the Tribunal had committed a procedural irregularity by proceeding to hear and decide the appeal without ascertaining whether notice of the hearing date had been issued and served upon AAI.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 188/2025 and ITA 191/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 826
The Delhi High Court has dismissed appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against Suzuki Motorcycle India, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's rejection of an Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) adjustment based on the Bright Line Test The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta followed the High Court's earlier decisions in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax which held that the Bright Line Test is not a method sanctioned by law for determining transfer pricing adjustments concerning AMP expenses.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3 v. Colossus Trade Links Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 637/2026
The Delhi High Court has recently issued notice on appeals filed by the Income Tax Department challenging an ITAT order which had annulled certain assessment orders on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the assessee not having filed a cross-appeal on that issue. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was hearing Revenue's challenge in connection with nine assessment years from 2010-11 to 2018-19. The assessments had arisen pursuant to proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) following a search conducted in the JBM Group of companies and associates on October 5, 2017.
Case Title : Dish Infra Services Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7-1, Delhi and Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9080/2026
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether an audit objection can constitute “information” for initiating proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a period prior to April 1, 2021. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the issue raised “seminal questions” requiring determination, particularly in view of the larger legal implications involved. The case arose from a notice issued to the assessee under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2019-20.
No Unaccounted Assets Or Investments Found: Delhi High Court Rejects Revenue's Plea For Higher Tax
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Uttam Chand Rakesh Kumar
Case Number : ITA 478/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 832
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department seeking to levy tax at a higher rate under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had recorded any finding regarding the existence of undisclosed or unaccounted assets or investments. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta upheld the ITAT order, observing that in the absence of unexplained investments, the very applicability of Section 69 was “out of question”. Consequently, the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE could not be invoked either.
Case Title : Campus Activewear Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6934/2024
The Delhi High Court has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to remain present before it and explain the “inordinate delay” in refunding Campus Activewear if the due payment along with applicable interest is not made by the next date. The refund has remained unpaid for last four years. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was informed by the Income Tax Department counsel that the requisite exercise for processing the Petitioner-company's refund was underway and the needful would be done within four weeks.
Case Title : Aricent Technologies Holding Ltd. (Formerly Known As Flextronics Software System Ltd.) v. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA 1015/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 839
The Delhi High Court has held that the loss incurred by a unit eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act can be set off against the profits of other units of the assessee. Section 10B provides for deductions in respect of profits derived by eligible 100% export-oriented undertakings from the export of articles, things or computer software. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that although profits of each eligible unit are required to be separately calculated for determining the quantum of deduction under Section 10B, such computation does not alter the treatment of the unit's profit or loss for the purpose of computing the assessee's overall income.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. Vitasta Estates Pvt Ltd
Case Number : ITA 278/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 852
The Delhi High Court has held that a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be sustained if the notice issued to the assessee fails to specify the particular limb under which the penalty proceedings are proposed. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta rejected the Revenue's appeal against an ITAT order which had set aside the penalty imposed on Vitasta Estates.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, New Delhi v. M/s J D Exim Pvt Ltd
Case No.: ITA 669/2026
The Delhi High Court has held that an amount received as an advance towards the sale of property cannot be added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in a subsequent assessment year, merely because the assessee allegedly adopted a “device” to set off the capital gain arising from the sale against a capital loss. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was dealing with an appeal filed by the Revenue against an ITAT order concerning Assessment Year 2016-17.
Case Title : Vodafone Idea Limited Successor Of Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (Vmsl) Which Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) And Is Now Known As Vodafone Idea Limited Represented Through Its Authorized Representative Aditya Aggarwal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 78(1) New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2729/2026 and batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 873
The Delhi High Court on 18 August allowed three petitions filed by Vodafone Idea Limited challenging the Income Tax Department's refusal to release Rs. 53,09,56,470 in tax refunds on the ground of outstanding demands against its PAN and sister TANs, and directed the Department to pay the amount with applicable interest by 30 September 2026. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that an outstanding tax demand does not by itself permit the Department to withhold a refund unless it passes a valid order for adjustment or withholding under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 New Delhi v. M/S Ansal Phalak Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (Now Known As New Look Builders And Developers Pvt Ltd)
Case Number : ITA 770/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 878
The Delhi High Court on 21 August dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against Ansal Phalak Infrastructure Pvt Ltd and upheld the deletion of the Rs. 55 crore addition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta emphasised that an Assessing Officer must objectively consider the reply and documents furnished by a taxpayer and cannot brush them aside while making an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (which deals with unexplained cash credits).
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹3.65 Crore Advance Tax Credit Against Capital Gains Liability
Case Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Marguerite Lasusa Chawla
Case Number : ITA 521/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 882
The Delhi High Court on 21 August upheld an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order directing the Income Tax Department to allow Marguerite Lasusa Chawla, a taxpayer, credit of Rs. 3.65 crore advance tax paid in an earlier assessment year against her capital gains tax liability arising in a subsequent assessment year. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed: "Technically and legally, the advance tax…deposited and the return furnished by the respondent pertains to the very same transaction and very same gain,"
Case Title : M/S Civitech Housing India (P) Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Subodh Goel v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 4(2) Delhi & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1077/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 883
The Delhi High Court on 21 August questioned the Income Tax Department's decision to withhold the entire refund of Rs.71.71 lakh payable to Civitech Housing India against an outstanding demand of only Rs.1.25 lakh. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it failed to comprehend why such a “meagre” demand warranted withholding the entire refund. It observed: “We fail to comprehend that while would the respondents withheld the entire refund of Rs.71,71,049/- for a meagre demand of Rs.1,25,389/- which has been calculated way back on 21.07.2026.”
Delhi Registered Office Doesn't Confer Jurisdiction Over UP Tax Audit Dispute: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Dhanesh Gupta & Co., Chartered Accountants v. UoI & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 610/201
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 889
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that merely because the registered office of a company whose accounts were audited is situated in Delhi, it does not mean that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dismissed a petition filed by a Chartered Accountants firm challenging a dispute concerning its fee bill and interest arising from its appointment as a Special Auditor.
Can ITAT Direct Amortisation Of Royalty Payment Beyond AO's Findings? Delhi High Court To Decide
Case Title : Aalap Digital Music Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA 385/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 895
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) could direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct a de novo assessment and amortise a music licence fee when the direction went beyond the case originally set up by the AO. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta admitted an appeal filed by Aalap Digital Music Private Limited against an ITAT order concerning Assessment Year 2016-17.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Black Money Act Prosecution Over Belated Retrospectivity Challenge
Case Title : Samir Thapar v. Principal Director Of Income Tax (Inv.), 1, Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12028/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 896
The Delhi High Court on 20 August refused to stay prosecution under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, observing that the Petitioner should have challenged the retrospective operation of its provisions when proceedings concerning the foreign assets first began. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta heard a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 50, 51 and 72(c) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Rejects ₹50.56 Crore Reassessment Additions For Want Of New Material
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7, Delhi v. Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Ltd.
Case Number : ITA 441/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 897
The Delhi High Court on 19 August held that the Revenue cannot revisit tax issues already considered while framing an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in reassessment proceedings unless new information or material comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dismissing the Revenue's appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleting two additions made during reassessment proceedings, one of Rs. 8,48,89,345 and the other of Rs. 42.08 crore.
Delhi High Court Refuses Stay On ITAT Order Directing Release Of ₹17.66 Crore Seized Cash
Case Title : The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Kapoor Industries Limited
Case Number : ITA 671/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 898
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot retain cash seized during a search once the assessment of the searched person is completed and the charge over the cash under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 comes to an end. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while refusing to stay an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order concerning Rs. 17.66 crore seized from lockers of searched persons Shakun Tamang and Ashish Kapoor.
Income Tax Act Section 245W Appeal Must Be Filed By AO Not PCIT: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Goldera International Ltd
Case Number : ITA 47/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 899
The Delhi High Court on 19 August clarified that an appeal under Section 245W(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be filed by the Assessing Officer (AO), and not by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). Section 245W provides for appeals to the High Court against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in cases covered by the provision. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the PCIT against Goldera International.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Ahmedabad South Indian Association Charitable Trust v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Exemption, Ahmedabad
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 9731 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 111
The Gujarat High Court has recently quashed reassessment proceedings against a charitable trust after the Revenue told the court that its tax portal had no functionality to withdraw an assessment order once it had been passed and accounted for. The assessment order was passed despite an interim order restraining the Assessing Officer from doing so. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati ruled, "Revenue cannot cite the excuse of nonavailability of any functionality in the system of withdrawing the assessment order, which has been passed in defiance of the interim orders / orders of this Court. The power under section 264 of the Act is always available for the higher authorities i.e. the Commissioner to either modify or set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer in case, it is found that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order de hors the interim orders passed by this Court".
Gujarat High Court Quashes Reassessment Against Adani Exports For AY 2010-11
Case Title : Adani Exports v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2)
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 3597 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 116
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings against Adani Exports for AY 2010-11. It found that the Assessing Officer had relied on an unamended partnership deed while reopening the assessment, despite the assessee having specifically informed him that the deed had been amended to remove the obligation to pay interest on partners' capital. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that the amended partnership deed expressly provided that no interest would be payable on the partners' capital.
Case Title : Loonchand Dhanraj HUF v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(3)
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 18101 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 118
The Gujarat High Court on 19 August held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot reopen an assessment on an issue already specifically examined during the original scrutiny merely on a change of opinion, unless fresh tangible material shows that income had escaped assessment because of suppression of material facts. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed a writ petition filed by Loonchand Dhanraj HUF and quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated through a notice dated 29 March 2019 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, along with the subsequent order rejecting its objections.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : Ruchira Papers Ltd. v. HPSEBL & Another
Case Number : CWP No. 9360 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 30
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed Section 3(1)(xi) of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity (Duty) Act, 2009, to the extent that it prescribed electricity duty on electricity generated by consumers through diesel generating sets or any other mode for captive or standby use. The court held that the charging provision under Section 3 of the 2009 Act does not cover electricity generated by a consumer from its own source for its own consumption. The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma allowed the petition filed by Ruchira Papers Ltd. It held that electricity duty cannot be imposed on a consumer generating electricity for its own consumption when the charging provision does not cover such a situation.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Section 269SS Income Tax Act Breach Does Not Bar Section 138 NI Act Case: J&K High Court
Case Title : Manzoor Ahmad Khan v. Javaid Ahmad Malik
Case Number : CRM(M) No. 392/2024 c/w CRM(M) No. 219/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 27
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on 18 August held that violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act does not render a transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), and attracts only the penalty prescribed under the Income Tax Act. Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act restricts the acceptance of certain loans, deposits and specified sums in cash. A Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed two petitions filed by Manzoor Ahmad Khan under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act arising from dishonour of ten cheques issued in connection with a Rs. 45.50 lakh land transaction.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions v. M/s Ananda Social & Education Trust
Case Number : I.T.A. No. 112/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 140
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed two Income Tax Department appeals concerning alleged unaccounted fees at an educational trust. It ruled that alleged unaccounted fee additions could not be sustained merely on the basis of loose sheets and similar seized documents in the absence of corroborative material. “Thus, the Revenue has not been able to corroborate the loose sheets and other seized materials on the basis of which the additions have been made. In the absence of any corroborative material, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the additions could not be sustained merely on the basis of the loose sheets and similar documents,” a Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao ruled.
Case Title : Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited v. DY. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3025 OF 2005
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 141
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a 2010 amendment to the Income Tax Act, which widened the scope of taxation of fees for technical services paid to non-residents, cannot be applied retrospectively to create a tax liability on past transactions. The court found that the amendment did more than clarify the existing law, as it widened the charging provision by removing the requirement that the technical services must have been rendered in India. “The impugned Amendment Act—Finance Act 2010 – is to be read down as prospectively applicable and not retrospectively applicable from 01.06.1976.”, It, therefore, ruled.
Case Title : Raitha Seva Sahakara v. The Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3419 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 142
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that Bank of Baroda had no statutory authority to create a lien over a cooperative society's current account for collection of TDS on cash withdrawals. It held that the responsibility to deduct the tax under Section 194N of the Income Tax Act rested on the bank. Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed that Section 194N placed the responsibility for deducting the prescribed tax on the banking company making the payment.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Regional Sports Centre's Building Tax Exemption Claim
Case Title : Regional Sports Centre v. The State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 3192 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 172
The Kerala High Court on 18 August set aside the Kerala Government's rejection of the Regional Sports Centre, Kochi's claim for exemption from building tax and directed it to reconsider the claim afresh. Justice Harisankar V. Menon passed the order after finding that the Government had failed to properly consider material showing that the Centre provided free sports coaching to several students and trainees. He held: "The Government to reconsider the claim for exemption raised by the petitioner afresh with specific reference to the observations made as above."
Madras HC
Madras High Court Quashes Reassessment Against Stock Broker Over Misreading Client Funds As Income
Case Title : The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Aryan Share And Stock Brokers Ltd
Case Number : TCA No.127 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 217
The Madras High Court on 31 July held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on the basis of suspicion arising from a misunderstanding of a stock broker's business model, ruling that client funds received by a broker in a fiduciary capacity cannot be treated as the broker's own income without tangible material. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order quashing reassessment proceedings against Aryan Share and Stock Brokers Ltd., holding that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision.
Case Title : M/s. Grace Infrastructure Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.No.18451 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 220
The Madras High Court on 20 July held that tax authorities must consider the impact of a court-approved demerger before revising an assessment and set aside a revision order passed without examining the effect of the restructuring on Grace Infrastructure Private Limited's financial statements. Justice C. Saravanan remitted the matter to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh adjudication, directing it to reconsider the assessment after allowing the company to file a revised return based on its post-demerger audited financial statements.
Madras High Court Quashes Geeco Enercon Reassessment, Says New Regime Cannot Revive Limitation
Case Title : Geeco Enercon Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : W.P.(MD) No.30962 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 238
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under the new reassessment regime after the limitation period under the old regime has expired, and quashed the reassessment proceedings against Geeco Enercon Private Limited for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. Justice C. Saravanan held that the proceedings the Income Tax Department initiated in August 2024 were barred by limitation and quashed the order dated 31 August 2024 and the consequential reopening notice.
Interest On Trust's FDs Taxable Without Specific Donor Direction For Corpus: Madras High Court
Case Title : St. Joseph's Development Trust v. The Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward
Case Number : T.C.A.No.124 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 245
The Madras High Court on 17 August held that interest earned on fixed deposits maintained by a Trust is taxable revenue receipt where donors have not specifically directed that such interest form part of the Trust's corpus. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed an appeal filed by St. Joseph's Development Trust, upholding the addition of Rs. 94.66 lakh as taxable interest income for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Patna HC
Patna High Court Quashes Reassessment Based On Bank's Wrong Reporting Of ₹12.50 Lakh FD As ₹12.50 Cr
Case Title : Satya Narayan Jha v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16288 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 20
The Patna High Court on 10 August quashed income tax reassessment proceedings against Satya Narayan Jha after Union Bank of India wrongly reported his fixed deposit of Rs. 12.50 lakh as Rs. 12.50 crore to the Income Tax Department, holding that the Department had relied on incorrect information. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the taxpayer to be given an opportunity to respond before reassessment, relied on the bank's incorrect information.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : UCWeb Mobile Private Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi and others
Case Number : Civil Writ Petition No. 4329 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 46
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently set aside the final assessment order passed against UCWeb Mobile Private Ltd. while its objections to the draft assessment order were pending before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The court held that the assessment violated the procedure prescribed under Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, which requires the Assessing Officer to pass the final assessment in conformity with directions issued by the DRP after considering the assessee's objections. A Division Bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Rupinderjit Chahal allowed UCWeb Mobile's writ petition. It set aside the final assessment order, the consequential demand notice and the notice initiating penalty proceedings.
Case Title : Subh Karan Yadav v. Income Tax Officer, Rewari, Haryana
Case Number : ITA-297-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 47
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 12 August held that capital gains exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be claimed where a residential property is sold and the proceeds are reinvested in another residential property purchased solely in the name of the taxpayer's wife. A Division Bench of Justices Deepak Sibal and Rupinderjit Chahal dismissed an appeal filed by Subh Karan Yadav, a retired government employee, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) denying him the benefit of capital gains exemption.
Rajasthan HC
Income Tax Findings Have Evidentiary Value In Benami Proceedings: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : M/s Alishan Complex Private Limited v. The Initiating Officer
Case Number : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1595 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 33
On 3 August, the Rajasthan High Court held that findings under the Income Tax Act, though not conclusive in proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions (PBPT) Act, have evidentiary value and must be considered by authorities deciding benami proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Shah allowed an appeal filed by Alishan Complex Private Limited against orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Adjudicating Authority and Initiating Officer, which had declared 79 properties purchased by the company as benami properties under the PBPT Act.
Telangana HC
Burden Shifts To Revenue Once Taxpayer Proves Creditworthiness And Genuineness: Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s. Agarwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad
Case Number : INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.73 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 60
The Telangana High Court on 22 July held that once a taxpayer establishes the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of credits through sufficient documentary evidence, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to disprove the material with independent and cogent evidence, and deleted income tax additions totalling Rs. 5.58 crore against Agarwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda allowed the company's appeal and set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had sustained the additions.
Income Tax Department Can't Retain Tax Collected Twice On Same Income: Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s Premier Solar Power Tech Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 21429 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL)63
The Telangana High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot retain tax collected twice on the same income and that the Commissioner must exercise powers under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision enables revision of an assessment to provide relief against over-assessment, even where the mistake is attributable to the taxpayer. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda made the observation while allowing a writ petition filed by Premier Solar Power Tech Private Limited, which challenged the rejection of its claim that Rs. 6.85 crore had effectively been subjected to tax twice.
Case Title : Escientia Advanced Sciences Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.16627 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL)64
The Telangana High Court on 11 August held that the share premium received by Escientia Advanced Sciences Pvt. Ltd. from a non-resident shareholder on a fresh issue of equity shares is a capital receipt and cannot be treated as taxable income. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda allowed the company's writ petition and quashed a Rs. 44.07 crore tax demand raised for assessment year 2019-20.
Reassessment Objections Must Be Raised Before Assessing Officer First: Telangana High Court
Case Title : Nitin Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.24088 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 65
The Telangana High Court on 11 August declined to interfere with reassessment proceedings against Nitin Enterprises at the preliminary stage, holding that objections concerning the jurisdiction and validity of the reassessment must first be raised before the Assessing Officer and, if necessary, pursued through the statutory appellate remedies. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that proceedings initiated through a notice under Section 148A and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are preliminary in nature and do not by themselves determine any tax liability.
ITAT
Case Title : Addl. CIT, Special Range-6 v. MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 6397/Del/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 258
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd., holding that payment gateway charges paid to banks are fees for banking services and not commission or brokerage. Upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' order deleting the disallowance, the tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's ruling in MakeMyTrip's own case and observed, "Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that no TDS was required to be made u/s 194H in respect of payment of gateway charges made to the Banks and, therefore, revenue's appeal on this issue is dismissed."
TPO Can't Treat Goodwill Amortisation As Operating Expense In Transfer Pricing: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Janes Defense India LLP v. DCIT, Circle 28(1), Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 5387/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 259
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that amortisation of goodwill arising from acquisition of a business cannot be treated as an operating expenditure while computing the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for calculating transfer pricing. Observing that such amortisation is "an abnormal item arising out of acquisition of business and not a regular operating expenditure", the tribunal ruled that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) could not include it in operating expenditure for determining the arm's length price.
ITAT Mumbai Quashes PCIT Revision Against Mumbai Trader As 'Larger Issue' Was Already Under Appeal
Case Title : M P Trading Company v. PCIT, Mumbai-20
Case Number : ITA No. 1107/MUM/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 260
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has refused to uphold the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) attempt to revise the assessment of a Mumbai-based trading company over alleged bogus purchases, ruling that the dispute was already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. A coram of Judicial Member Challa Nagendra Prasad and Accountant Member Prabhash Shankar observed, "The larger issue as to whether the purchases made by the assessee from Mahadev Enterprises and Tirupati Traders were genuine or not, or whether the profit element embedded therein should be estimated at 25%, was already the subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, since the larger issue was pending before the Ld. CIT(A), we hold that the Ld. PCIT was barred from invoking revisional jurisdiction by virtue of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we hold that to the extent of treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in respect of purchases made from Mahadev Enterprises and Tirupati Traders, the order of the Ld. PCIT is bad in law."
Case Title : Honda Trading Asia Company Ltd. v. DCIT (International Taxation), Noida
Case Number : ITA Nos. 876/Del/2021, 2367/Del/2022, 2368/Del/2022 and 888/Del/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 261
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that a mere presumption that employees of a parent company deputed to an Indian group entity rendered services on behalf of a non-resident assessee, without any cogent material to support it, is insufficient to establish a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. A coram of Judicial Member Vimal Kumar and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman observed that the Revenue had failed to establish that Honda Trading Asia Company Ltd. had a fixed place of business or any employees deputed by it in India.
ITAT Delhi Cuts Share Of BBC Global News' India Ad Revenue Attributed To Indian PE From 15% To 12%
Case Title : BBC Global News Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Intl Tax 1(1)(2)
Case Number : ITA Nos. 52 to 56/DEL/2025 & ITA No. 1847/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 262
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has reduced from 15% to 12% the share of BBC Global News Limited's Indian advertisement revenue treated as profit attributable to its Indian Permanent Establishment (PE). The same finding has been applied to assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23. The ITAT took assessment year 2022-23 as the lead case. It held that while an increase from the earlier 8.75% rate was justified, the assessing officer had fixed the 15% rate merely on estimation.
ITAT Delhi Deletes Over ₹7,800 Crore Tax Adjustments Against Samsung India
Case Title : Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi
Case Number : ITA Nos. 461/Del/2021 and 1955/Del/2021; SA Nos. 293/Del/2025 and 239/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 263
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has deleted about ₹3,605 crore in adjustments for AY 2016-17 and ₹4,211 crore for AY 2017-18 in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal also excluded Verizon Communications Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable for Samsung India's networking segment and upheld its use of the Berry Ratio for benchmarking distribution transactions. The bench comprising Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra found Verizon functionally different from Samsung India's networking business. About 92% of Samsung India's networking revenue came from trading, while Verizon derived 99.99% of its revenue from services.
SaaS Support Does Not Amount To Transfer Of Technology Under India-US DTAA: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Branch Metrics Inc. v. DCIT/ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 1(1)(2), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 3599/Del/2023 and IT(IT)A No. 1122/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 264
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has recently held that payments received by US-based Branch Metrics Inc. from Indian customers for its standard SaaS products do not qualify as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US DTAA. The tribunal found that while customers could use the platform, they were not enabled to apply the technology underlying it, failing the “make available” test under the treaty. A bench comprising Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal accordingly deleted the ₹24.16 crore addition for assessment year (AY) 2021-22.
Case Title : Blossom Nandi [Legal Representative of deceased assessee Santanu Nundy] v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(1)(1)
Case Number : ITA No. 2552/Mum/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 265
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the CIT(A) has discretion to set aside an assessment and send the case back for a fresh assessment. However, the CIT(A) must first decide the taxpayer's basic legal objections on whether the reassessment itself was valid. Under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, the CIT(A) has the power to set aside an assessment made under Section 144. The ITAT observed that exercising this power does not remove the CIT(A)'s obligation to decide substantive legal grounds challenging the reassessment.
Case Title : KRISHNA MOHAN POTLURI VS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE
Case Number : ITA 101/Viz/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(VIZ) 266
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Visakhapatnam has recently quashed reassessment proceedings against an assessee after holding that the Income Tax Department could not use the amended reassessment provisions to reopen a matter after the statutory time limit for assessment had already expired. The bench of Vice President Vijay Pal Rao and Accountant Member Manjunatha G observed, “Since the assessment u/s 153A already attained finality by expiry of limitation u/s 153B of the Act, the said limitation cannot be extended by resorting to subsequent amendment u/s 148 of the Act.”
Photograph Of Handwritten Note Cannot Independently Prove Cash Transaction: ITAT Chennai
Case Title : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai v. Ivar Estates Private Limited
Case Number : ITA No. 1857/Chny/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT (CHE) 267
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a photograph of a handwritten document cannot independently establish an alleged cash payment when it is merely an electronic reproduction of the same document. The Bench of Judicial Member Manu Kumar Giri and Accountant Member S.R. Raghunatha made the observation while upholding the deletion of a ₹18.87 crore addition against Ivar Estates Private Limited. The Revenue had alleged that the company paid the amount in cash, over and above the recorded consideration, for purchasing land at Vadapalani.
Delhi ITAT Allows Foreign AE As Tested Party Under RPM In ₹13.42 Crore Transfer Pricing Case
Case Title : ACIT v. POSCO International India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 2430/Del/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 268
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 19 August held that a foreign Associated Enterprise (AE) can be selected as the tested party under the Resale Price Method (RPM) for back-to-back merchant trading transactions where it is the least complex entity and reliable comparable data is available. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of a Rs. 13.42 crore transfer pricing adjustment concerning POSCO International India's purchase of steel slabs and HRCF coils from its Korean AE, POSCO Korea, for resale through merchant trading.
Case Title : Hero Fincorp Limited v. DCIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 3094/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 269
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 August deleted a Rs. 168.31 crore share premium addition made against Hero FinCorp for Assessment Year 2018-19 under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan held that the company's Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) projections could not be rejected merely by comparing them with subsequent financial results, and allowed the company's appeal.
Case Title : ACIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi v. WNS Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : ITA No. 663/Del/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 270
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25 August upheld the exclusion of Eclerx Services, TCS E Serve, Infosys BPO and Acropetal Technologies from WNS Business Consulting Services' comparable set, observing that transfer-pricing comparables must be assessed on their actual functional profile rather than merely on their presence in the same broad industry. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 and upheld the deletion of the Rs. 87.72 lakh transfer-pricing adjustment.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
CBDT Notifies Rules For Small Taxpayers To Disclose Undisclosed Foreign Assets, Income
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has notified rules allowing taxpayers to disclose certain foreign assets that were not reported in their income-tax returns, including assets acquired while they were non-residents but not disclosed after they became residents in India. The disclosure has to be made by December 31, 2026. The rules deal with two different kinds of cases. One is where the foreign income or asset itself was undisclosed. The other covers certain foreign assets that were not disclosed in the income tax return, even though they were acquired from income earned while the taxpayer was a non-resident or from income proposed to be taxed in India.