LiveLawBiz Direct Tax Weekly Round-Up: May 04 - May 10, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
11 May 2026 2:51 PM IST
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Bombay High Court Condones 430-Day Delay By Charitable Trust In Filing Declaration For Tax Exemption
Case Title : Bombay Prathana Samaj Vs The Union of India and Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 2039 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 267
The Bombay High Court has condoned a 430-day delay by Bombay Prathana Samaj, a charitable trust, in submitting a mandatory declaration required for claiming a tax exemption benefit, after finding that the trust had shown reasonable cause for the delay and would otherwise suffer genuine hardship. “The approach of the authority ought to be equitious, balancing and judicious and availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation,” the Court observed while referring to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO (E).
Case Title : Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai Versus Impact Foundation (India)
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 274
The Bombay High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against Impact Foundation (India), holding that revisionary proceedings under the Income Tax Act could not be sustained merely because the Commissioner believed the assessing officer should have conducted further enquiry. “The ITAT has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that the CIT (Exemptions), could not have initiated proceedings with a view to start de novo or a fishing inquiry in matters or orders which are already concluded, unless he was able to hold that the AO's view on the issue was unsustainable in law”
Case Title : Jigar Nemichand Sanghvi Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-19(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3261 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 276
The Bombay High Court has waived re-verification of amended pleadings in pending writ petitions challenging income tax reassessment notices, where assessees now seek to challenge the newly inserted Section 147A following the Supreme Court's ruling in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh v. Tej Pratap Singh. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe said re-verification need not be insisted upon, noting that a large number of similar reassessment matters were pending before the Court.
No TDS Payable On National Highways' Land Acquisition Arbitral Awards: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Tukaram Kana Pawara (Deceased) Thr. Legal Heirs v. The Project Director Project Implementation Unit
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 914 of 2026 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 288
The Bombay High Court has held that deducting TDS from compensation awarded under arbitral awards in National Highways acquisition cases is impermissible, holding that forcing land losers to seek tax refunds would defeat the purpose of the land acquisition law's tax exemption. Referring to Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Court observed, "Any interpretation which requires deduction of tax at source and thereafter compels land losers to seek refund from the Income Tax Department would defeat the very purpose of the legislation. Such an approach, which forces farmers and land losers to move from one authority to another, is clearly contrary to the objects and reasons of the 2013 Act."
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone Delay In Late Filing To Opt Lower Corporate Tax Regime
Case Title : Mentaura Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4449/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 451
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to condone delay by a company in opting for a concessional corporate tax regime, holding that its application filed beyond the three-year limit prescribed under a CBDT circular was not maintainable. The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed the writ petition filed by a company challenging the rejection of its application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC for Assessment Year 2020–21.
ITAT
Cash Deposits In Education Trust Account Not Taxable In Individual's Hands: ITAT New Delhi
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Deepak Gupta
Case Number : ITA No. 5276/Del/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 122
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), on 30 April, held that cash deposits in a bank account of a separate legal entity cannot be taxed in an individual's hands merely because he is an authorised signatory, unless there is evidence establishing beneficial ownership or undisclosed income. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member Brajesh Kumar Singh dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 4,94,69,000 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Receipts From Capital Asset Transfer Cannot Be Taxed Under Residuary Head: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title : DCIT v. Dinesh Gulab Mirchandani
Case Number : ITA No. 692/Mum/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 123
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 30 April 2026 held that once a receipt is characterised as arising from the transfer of a capital asset, the tax authority cannot reclassify it under the residuary head of income merely because computation under the capital gains provisions is disputed or fails. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 27 November 2025, which had deleted an addition of Rs. 3.67 crore made under the head “Income from Other Sources”.
ITAT New Delhi Sets Aside Rejection Of Trust Registration Over Missing Irrevocability Clause
Case Title : Social Welfare Public Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
Case Number : ITA No. 304 & 305/Del/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 124
The New Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 30 April held that absence of an irrevocability clause in a Trust Deed is not, by itself, fatal to registration where the defect is subsequently cured and set aside the rejection of registration of a charitable Trust. A Bench of Judicial Member Raj Kumar Chauhan and Accountant Member Brajesh Kumar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Social Welfare Public Trust and set aside the orders dated 3 December 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi, rejecting registration under the Income Tax Act and consequent approval for tax-deductible donations.
NFAC Must Decide Appeal on Merits, Cannot Dismiss for Non-Prosecution: ITAT Delhi
Case Title : Pritam Singh v. ITO Ward-3 Panipat
Case Number : ITA No. 677/DEL/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 125
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 30 April held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide it on merits under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal heard an appeal against the NFAC order dated 11 September 2025 for Assessment Year 2012-13 and condoned a delay of 53 days after accepting the taxpayer's explanation of illness supported by a medical certificate. It held: “The appeal should have been decided on merit as per the provision of the section 250 of the Act. The appeal was decided ex-parte without giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee.”
ITAT Mumbai Allows Deduction For Donation To PM Relief Fund Despite Being Part Of CSR
Case Title : Landmark Worldwide Breakthrough Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 1303/MUM/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 126
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, has allowed Landmark Worldwide Breakthrough Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to claim a deduction on its donation to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, even though the payment formed part of its CSR expenditure. The bench comprising Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Girish Agrawal held that such a claim cannot be denied merely because the donation was made to meet CSR obligations. The taxpayer had filed its return declaring a total income of Rs. 6.83 crore. It had incurred CSR expenditure, which it disallowed under Section 37(1), but separately claimed a deduction of Rs. 22.94 lakh under Section 80G for a donation to PMNRF.
ITAT Mumbai Holds Section 68 Applies Only to Fresh Credits, Deletes ₹1.20 Crore Addition
Case Title : Viking Technology & Trade Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 8514/Mum./2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 127
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 4 May held that additions under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be made in the absence of any fresh credit arising during the relevant previous year, and remanded the matter for fresh verification. A Bench comprising Accountant Member Bijayananda Pruseth and Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who had sustained an addition of Rs. 1.20 crore against Viking Technology & Trade Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Mumbai Restores Fees Regulating Authority Matter Pending Section 10(46) Notification Outcome
Case Title : Fees Regulating Authority v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITA No. 4865/Mum./2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 128
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 30 April held that the taxability of the Fees Regulating Authority cannot be conclusively decided while its application for notification under Section 10(46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 remains pending before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). A Bench comprising Accountant Member Bijayananda Pruseth and Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and set aside the impugned order.