This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.
S. 197: Declaration-Payment of last instalment-The Court directed the revenue to complete the entire exercise of giving credit and issuance of Form-4 and modifying the income and demand under the assessment order dated 11-12-2019 for the assessment year 2017-18 by passing a necessary rectification order, shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of uploading of this order. [S.187(3), 197(b),264, Art. 226]

Vishnu Trimbak Thakur v. PCIT (2026) 308 Taxman 569 (Bom.)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

S. 4: Filing of declaration and undertaking in respect of tax arrears-Permission to withdraw its pending civil appeals to avail benefit under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme; permission was granted and accordingly, appeals were disposed of as withdrawn.[S. 3, Art. 136]

Prestige Estates Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 283 (SC) Editorial: Prestige Estates Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, ITA No. 105 of 2009 dt. 17-11 2009 (Karn)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
S. 91 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished-Pendency of appeal-Non-Resident-Appeal was filed manually-No Aadhaar No-Rejection of application was set aside-The respondent authority is directed to process the declaration in Form No. 1 filed by the assessee under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024. [R. 45, Art.226

Tejal Mayur Rao v. Pr. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 125 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 278B: Offences and prosecutions-Companies-Failure to pay tax deducted at source (TDS) within prescribed time limit-Summoning order-Disputed factual matters which must be tested at trial through evidence and cross-examination; summoning order passed against managing director was upheld. [S.276B, 278E, BNSS Act, S.528, CRPC, 482]

Dr. Manoj Khanna v. ITO (2026) 308 Taxman 455 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Willful attempt to evade tax-Sanction was given to the Deputy Director for initiating prosecution proceedings; hence, prosecution had to be launched by him alone and by the Assistant Director-Matter was settled in accordance with Section 93 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024-SLP was to be disposed of with the observation that judgment was not to be treated as precedent for any purpose. [S. 278BB, 279]

ADIT (Inv) v. Tirumala Tirupati Constructions India (P) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 235 (SC) Editorial : Tirumala Tirupati Constructions India (P) Ltd v. ADIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 363 (Telengana) (HC)

S. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-Order of High Court was stayed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.05.2025-Subsequently revenue had issued a notice for penalty under section 272A-Since order of High Court was already stayed by Supreme Court, penalty notice was also to be stayed.[S.68, Art, 136]

Dalmia Power Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 162 (SC) Editorial : ACIT v. Dalmia Power Ltd (2025) 305 Taxman 26 (Mad)(HC), stayed.

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Failure to specify the charge-No specific limb was struck off-The Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty.[S.68, 260A, 274]

PCIT v. Chetan Gupta (2026) 308 Taxman 565 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Income from other sources-Deductions-Tax effect was below the monetary threshold limit of Rs. 2 crores as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, dated 17-9-2024, appeal was to be dismissed for low tax effect. [S.56, 57(iii), 260A]

PCIT v. Milestone Real Estate Fund (2026) 308 Taxman 560 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 264: Commissioner-Revision of other orders-82-year-old woman-Order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the application was set aside and remanded to the Commissioner to re-examine the assessment of the assessee and pass appropriate orders. [S. 139, Art.226]

Shushilaben Jayantibhai Patel v. PCIT (2026) 308 Taxman 68(Guj.)(HC)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation-Amalgamation-Demerger-There was no error per se in the order of assessment, and the direction under the order of revision amounted to a mere roving enquiry and the same was set aside.[S.2(19AA), 2(IB), 72A(2), 72A(4)]

CIT v. Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 588 (Mad)(HC)