| Legislative Update |
N/A |
Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 |
Click Here |
Replaces the Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026. Amends the Income-tax Act, 2025, Finance Act, 2026, and Payment & Settlement Systems Act, 2007 to introduce tax incentives for fund management, electronics manufacturing, data centres, and foreign investors while streamlining tax provisions. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
2(15) |
International Will Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) |
Click Here |
Where a trust’s primary activity was providing student transportation for a fee to generate a surplus, the activity was held to be commercial and not exclusively charitable; merely facilitating education does not automatically qualify it for registration under Section 12AB. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
2(22)(e) |
Jorss Bullion (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Reopening of assessment beyond four years was held unsustainable because the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts regarding its shareholding pattern during the original assessment under Section 2(22)(e). |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
2(22)(e) |
Jorss Bullion (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
An inter-corporate loan/advance does not attract deemed dividend provisions under Section 2(22)(e) where the borrowing company is not a registered shareholder of the lender, and the common shareholder holds less than 20% in the borrowing company. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
10(10B) |
Yogesh Shyamsunder Maheshwari v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Ex-gratia payments received by BSNL employees under BSNL VRS-2019 qualify as retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B) rather than Section 10(10C), rendering the full amount a tax-exempt capital receipt without monetary limit. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
10(10B) |
Vinod Kumar Madan v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Reaffirmed that ex-gratia received by retired BSNL employees under VRS-2019 qualifies as retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B) and is not restricted to relief under Section 10(10C). |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
12AB |
Doddaballapura Planning Authority v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) |
Click Here |
Rejection of renewal of registration under Section 12AB solely on the ground that the initial registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was allegedly invalid is unsustainable unless the earlier registration was formally cancelled following due statutory process. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
12AB |
World Sankirtan Tour Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) |
Click Here |
Classifying a trust as a “Religious Entity” merely due to a dormant clause in the trust deed is unjustified when its sole actual activities involve animal welfare (stray cattle); the trust must be recognised as a Charitable Institution for registration under Section 12AB. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
32AC |
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. |
Click Here |
New fuel dispensing units installed at retail outlets by an oil refining and marketing company qualify as new plant and machinery used for business, entitling the assessee to investment allowance under Section 32AC. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
37(1) |
Globizz Synergy (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Where marketing expense claims lacked third-party vouchers but were audited without adverse remarks and reasonable relative to turnover, disallowing the entire expense was unjust; the disallowance was restricted to a ad-hoc lump sum of ₹5 lakhs. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
56(2)(x) |
Ankit Bharat Sheth v. Income Tax Officer |
Click Here |
An allotment letter fixing property consideration with substantial payment via banking channels can be treated as an agreement under the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x), allowing the adoption of stamp duty valuation as of the allotment date. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
68 |
Pestkill Pesticides Industries v. Principal Commissioner |
Click Here |
Addition under Section 68 for unexplained capital contribution was held unsustainable because the firm discharged its onus by explaining the source, reflecting it in partner accounts/balance sheets, and similar partner contributions were accepted. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
69 |
Hotel Mahalaxmi v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Revaluation of existing tenancy/leasehold rights in business premises based on a valuer’s report and crediting partner capital accounts without introducing funds, acquiring new assets, or claiming depreciation cannot be taxed as unexplained investment under Section 69. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
80G |
World Sankirtan Tour Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) |
Click Here |
Dissemination of ethical principles (e.g., discourses on Bhagavad Gita) incidental to animal welfare and education does not constitute propagation of religion; rejection of approval under Section 80G was set aside as the predominant character remained charitable. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
145 |
Super Industries v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Notional interest cannot be added to income under the mercantile system where no real income accrued due to the poor financial condition of non-paying debtors and lack of interest recovery for consecutive years. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
148 |
Aneri Dipakkumar Patel v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Reopening notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2014-15 after the expiration of the surviving time limit (as clarified by the Supreme Court) was declared invalid and quashed. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
148A |
Appnell Holdings Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, International Tax |
Click Here |
Challenges to CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 (which implemented the Supreme Court’s Ashish Agarwal ruling converting old Section 148 notices into Section 148A(b) notices) cannot be entertained and are liable to be dismissed. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
149 |
Appnell Holdings Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, International Tax |
Click Here |
Reassessment notice under Section 148 and order under Section 148A(d) for AY 2015-16 issued on 28.07.2022 were held to be well within the limitation period as per provisos to Section 149 read with TOLA. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
149(1) |
Satyanarayana Gandam v. ITO |
Click Here |
Notice under Section 148 issued on 07-04-2022 for AY 2015-16 beyond 6 years was quashed; the revenue could not rely on provisos inserted into Section 149(1) by the Finance Act, 2023, as they were not in force on the date the notice was issued. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
159 |
Himanshubhai Vinodbhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Reassessment proceedings initiated against a deceased assessee are invalid when the legal representative promptly objected to jurisdiction upon receiving the notice and did not submit to the proceedings. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
201 |
State Bank of India LCPC v. ACIT/DCIT TDS |
Click Here |
Upheld appellate order regarding non-deduction of TDS on foreign-leg LTC/LFC reimbursements as settled by SC in SBI v. ACIT ([2022] 144 taxmann.com 131), subject to the final outcome of pending SLPs. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
250 |
High Vista Buildcon (P.) Ltd. v. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi |
Click Here |
Failure of NFAC to provide a virtual hearing link despite an explicit request constitutes a violation of natural justice, warranting setting aside of the appellate and penalty orders for fresh consideration. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
251 |
Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
An enhancement of assessment by the CIT(A) without issuing a formal statutory notice of proposed enhancement under Section 251(2) is invalid; general discussions or examination of ledger accounts do not fulfill the notice requirement. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
270A |
Globizz Synergy (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Penalty for misreporting under Section 270A cannot be sustained when an expenditure claim is disallowed merely due to lack of third-party supporting vouchers rather than deliberate suppression, false entries, or misrepresentation. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
270A / 263 |
Kamalkant Bhagwatiprasad Oza v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) |
Click Here |
Revision order under Section 263 was quashed because initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A is discretionary upon the AO’s satisfaction; PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty without establishing how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. |
