Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Sidharth Carbochem Products Ltd. v. TRO (2026) 309 Taxman 406 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 245D: Settlement Commission-Procedure-Rectification-Final order charging interest under section 234B only till the date of intimation under section 143(1)-Assessee paid the dues, and proceedings concluded-Commission has no power to invoke section 154 to levy additional interest till the date of the final order-Rectification order quashed. [S. 143(1), 154, 234B, 245D(4), Art. 226]

Piramal Finance Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2026] 309 Taxman 548 (Bom)(HC)

S. 245: Refunds-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Conditional stay-Tribunal granted conditional stay allowing adjustment of only 20 per cent of demand out of refund, but respondents adjusted entire refund in violation of operative stay order, such action was illegal, and failure of Tribunal to direct refund of excess amount with interest was erroneous, necessitating setting aside impugned order to this extent and directing refund of excess amount with interest as per law.[S. 254(1), Art. 226]

Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. ITO(TDS) [2026] 309 Taxman 539 (Bom)(HC)

S. 244A: Refunds-Interest on delayed payment of TDS-Date of tendering cheque to authorised bank constitutes date of payment-Rigidities of online portal cannot deny substantive justice-Refund with interest ordered. [S. 201, 220, Art. 226]

Manjulaben Mafatial Shah v. TRO (2026) 309 Taxman 545 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 226: Collection and recovery of tax-Spouse-Other modes of recovery-Mere spouse of a director does not create liability for the company’s tax dues; hence, attachment of the spouse’s bank account under section 226(3) is without jurisdiction and invalid. The order was quashed and set aside. [S. 226(3), 179, Art. 226]

Clearmedi Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Dy CIT [2026] 309 Taxman 94 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 220: Collection and recovery of tax-Stay of demand-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-CBDT Office Memorandums do not mandate a rigid pre-deposit of 20%-Assessing Officers must judicially exercise discretion based on prima facie merits, financial hardship, and potential hardship-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 220(6), 250, Art. 226]

Fork Media Group (P.) Ltd. v. CPC [2026] 309 Taxman 204 (Bom)(HC)

S. 220: Collection and recovery of tax-Stay-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Refund-Recovery during pendency of appeal before First Appellate Authority cannot exceed 20 per cent of disputed demand without explicit approval of Principal Commissioner-Adjustment of refund in excess of 20% held contrary to CBDT instructions-Directed to refund the amount. [S. 220(6), 250, 270A, Art. 226]

Little More Engineering (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2026) 309 Taxman 125 (Cal.) (HC)

S. 220: Collection and recovery of tax-Stay-Adjustment of refund-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Refund cannot be adjusted against a demand stayed under section 220(6); once the assessee is treated as not in default, such recovery is impermissible-Directed to refund the amount. [S. 220(6), 245, Art. 226]

Dy. CIT (TDS) v. Deputy Director (Mineral and Administration) [2026] 309 Taxman 499 (SC). Dy. CIT (TDS) v. District Mining Officer, Dantewada Mining Office [[2026] 309 Taxman 246/ 488 ITR 669 (SC). Editorial: District Mining Officer v. Dy.CIT (TDS) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 1008 //(2026) 488 ITR 656 (Chhattisgarh)(HC) / District Mining Officer v. Dy. CIT (TDS) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 1008 /(2026) 488 ITR 656 (Chhattisgarh). (HC

S. 206C: Collection at source-Trading-Forest produce-No legislative mandate to collect TCS on compounding fees or fines recovered from illegal miners and mineral transporters-SLP dismissed [S. 206(IC), Art. 136, MMDR Act, 1957, S. 23A, Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015, R. 71(5)]

ITO v. Gayatri Snehal Rao [2026] 309 Taxman 330 (SC) Editorial: Gayatri Snehal Rao v. ITO [2024] 168 taxmann.com 466 (Guj) (HC)

S. 205: Deduction of tax at source-Bar against direct demand on assessee-Non-deposit of TDS-Revenue cannot recover the same tax from the assessee merely because the employer failed to deposit the TDS with the Government-SLP dismissed on account of delay by 360 days and also on merits. [S.143(1), 199, Art. 136]

ITO v. Shobhan Shantilal Doshi (2026) 309 Taxman 172/488 ITR 679 (SC) Editorial: Gayatri Snehal Rao v. ITO [2024] 168 taxmann.com 466/ (2026) 488 ITR 670 (Guj) (HC)(para 5) modified

S. 205: Deduction of tax at source-Bar against direct demand on assessee-Non-deposit of TDS-No demand can be raised against the assessee under sections 199 and 205 where TDS has been deducted but not deposited by the deductor; directions for CBDT software modifications, being unrelated to the dispute, are unsustainable. [S.199, Art.136]