LiveLawBiz Direct Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 31 - September 06, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
8 Sept 2026 7:25 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi HC Ruling On GoDaddy Domain Fees Under India-US DTAA
Case Title : ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GODADDY.COM
Case Number : 45711/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order holding that payments received by GoDaddy.com LLC from Indian customers towards domain-name registration services are not chargeable to income tax in India under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli after hearing the parties, refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order.
Case Title : THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 VERSUS SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.40944/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 288
The Supreme Court on 31 August dismissed the Income Tax Department's Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against the Delhi High Court's judgment in Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd's transfer pricing dispute, citing unexplained delays of 609 days and 457 days while keeping the questions of law open. A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the petitions on the ground of delay, finding no satisfactory explanation from the Revenue for the gross delays.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
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.
Delhi HC
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
Gujarat High Court Grants ₹1 Crore Tax Refund To Charitable Trust After Exemption Was Omitted
Case Title : Sheth Shree Karshandas Halu Dharamshala Jamnagar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 15686 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 120
The Gujarat High Court on 25 August quashed the rejection of the revision application filed by Sheth Shree Karshandas Halu Dharamshala Jamnagar and held that the public charitable trust was entitled to exemption under Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that a bona fide omission to claim a statutory tax benefit in the original return can be corrected through revisional proceedings under Section 264 of the Act.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Sets Aside Income Tax Assessment Treating PG Student's Stipend As Salary
Case Title : Nahas Kakkattummal v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : WA NO. 1543 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 177
The Kerala High Court on 17 August set aside an income tax assessment order treating the stipend received by a postgraduate medical student as salary, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider his claim that stipend paid to a student is exempt from income tax. A Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji allowed the appeal filed by Nahas Kakkattummal and set aside both the Single Judge's judgment and the assessment order, directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter after giving the student an opportunity to produce relevant documents.
Patna HC
Patna High Court Refuses To Interfere With ₹60.88 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against FCI Contractor
Case Title : Anjani Kumar Singh v. Addnl. Commissioner (CCO) of CGST and Central Excise & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10227 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PAT) 24
The Patna High Court on 28 August refused to interfere with a Service Tax demand of Rs. 60.88 lakh, along with interest and penalties, raised against a contractor engaged by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya dismissed the writ petition filed by Anjani Kumar Singh, while granting him liberty to pursue the statutory remedy available under law. It observed: “We have noticed that neither before the competent authority/assessing authority nor before this Court, the petitioner has produced the relevant tender document.”
ITAT
ITAT New Delhi Quashes Reassessment Based On Information Already Available On Record
Case Title : JNJ Electronics Limited & Ors. v. DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi
Case Number : ITA Nos. 3220 to 3224/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 271
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 August 2026 held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated by presenting information already available on the assessment record as fresh material. Such proceedings are without jurisdiction. A Bench comprising Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Singh allowed five connected appeals involving Jay Ace Technologies Limited, JNJ Electronics Limited and other companies of the JP Minda Group for Assessment Year 2013-14.
Case Title : ACIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi v. Royal Sales Private Limited
Case Number : ITA Nos. 2401 & 2402/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 272
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 24 August held that an Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years falling outside the statutory block prescribed under the provision. The provision applies to the assessment of income of a person other than the person searched, where seized material is found to relate to such person. A Bench comprising Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman and Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Singh upheld the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in favour of Royal Sales Private Limited and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for assessment years (AYs) 2010-11 and 2011-12.
ITAT Delhi Quashes Revision Against Sr. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi For CCIT's Unauthorised PCIT Notice
Case Title : Shri Mukul Rohatgi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-61(1), New Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 3714/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 273
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 28 August quashed the revisionary order passed against Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Assessment Year 2022-23, holding that the Section 263 notice issued by the officer after his promotion to CCIT was without jurisdiction. A Bench comprising Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member Sanjay Awasthi held that an officer promoted as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) cannot exercise the powers of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act without an express authorisation under Section 120(2).
Case Title : M/s HSB Home Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 6520/DEL/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 274
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 31 August held that where both purchases and corresponding sales are found to be bogus, the entire purchase value cannot be added to income without accounting for the profit element arising from the transactions. Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Sanjay Awasthi partly allowed HSB Home Solutions Ltd.'s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, upholding the reopening of the assessment and directing the Assessing Officer to apply a 5% gross profit rate to the turnover instead of adding the entire purchase value.
Live Cricket Broadcast Payments Not Taxable as Royalty, Non-Live Broadcast Rights Are: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : ACIT v. Times Content Limited (now known as Time Internet Limited)
Case Number : ITA Nos. 5328, 5331 & 5333/Del/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 275
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has reiterated that payments for live cricket broadcasts are not taxable as royalty. However, the portion attributable to repeat or non-live broadcasts can be treated as royalty. Relying on earlier judgments, including the Supreme court's ruling in CIT v. Sri Lanka Cricket, the tribunal ruled: “Accordingly, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held the live telecast as not the Royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act. However, the repeat telecast i.e. non live telecast is not out of the scope of Royalty."
ITAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹1.53 Crore EDC TDS Demand Against DLF Homes
Case Title : DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited v. DCIT, TDS Circle 72(1), Delhi
Case Number : ITA No. 396/DEL/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 276
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside an appellate order upholding a ₹1.53 crore tax demand against DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited over External Development Charges. The tribunal sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA/HSVP) had met the conditions under the Income Tax Act that could protect the developer from being treated as an assessee-in-default.