Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Dy. CIT v. GTPL Hathway Ltd.[2026] 309 Taxman 244/488 ITR 636 (SC) Editorial: GTPL Hathway Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 616 (Guj)(HC).

S. 147: Reassessment-Lease rent-Unrealised gain-Depreciation-Absence of fresh tangible material-Reopening cannot be initiated on repetitive lease rent transactions accepted in past scrutiny assessments, unearned/unrealized foreign exchange hedging variations, or by applying prospective amendments on goodwill depreciation retroactively-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 32(1), 37(1),43(6) (c), 148, Art. 136]

Pact Securities & Financial Services Ltd. v. Dy CIT (2026) 309 Taxman 374 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 145: Method of accounting-Income-Accrual-Real income theory-Interest accrued on NPA loans is taxable where the assessee’s own conduct, such as extending further credit to the same borrowers, shows a realistic prospect of recovery; RBI Prudential Norms do not govern taxability under the Income-tax Act. [S. 4, 5]

Zynga Game Network India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2026) 309 Taxman 322 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Time limit-Final assessment order to be passed within one month from the end of the month in which the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are received-Order passed about five months late-Timeline is mandatory-Order, computation sheet and demand notice quashed. [S. 143, 144B, 156]

Sanjiv Manoharlal Sethi v .Dy .CIT (2026) 309 Taxman 311 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Failure to provide personal hearing through video conferencing against proposed variation and video conference was duly scheduled-Assessing Officer passed final order before such hearing-Order violated section 144B(6)(vii) and principles of natural justice-Order was quashed and set aside . [S. 143(3),144B(6)(vii), Art . 226]

Dy. CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2026] 309 Taxman 501/488 ITR 624 (SC). Editorial: Reliance Industries Ltd. v. P. L. Roongta [2025] 171 taxmann.com 467 /479 ITR 770 (Bom)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Non-existing entity-Order passed in the name of non-existing amalgamated entities despite revenue’s knowledge-Application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC allowed-SLP dismissed. [S. 143, 260A, CPC Order XLI Rule 27, Art. 136]

Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CBDT (2026) 309 Taxman 148 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 139: Return of income-Condonation of delay-Return uploaded eight minutes late owing to portal issues-Carry forward of business loss of about Rs. 21.33 crores denied under section 80-Minimal delay condoned to prevent grave hardship. [S. 44AB, 80, 119(2)(b), 139(1), Art. 226]

Pawan Kaur Goel v. Pr. CIT (2026) 309 Taxman 248 /488 ITR 654 (SC) Editorial: Pawan Kumar Goel v. PCIT [2026] 182 taxmann.com 507 (P & H) (HC)

S. 127: Power to transfer cases-Income-tax authorities-A transfer under section 127 remains valid notwithstanding the quashing of the search under section 132. [S.132, 133A, Art. 136]

Dawat E Islami Hind v. CIT (E) [2026] 309 Taxman 531 (Bom)(HC)

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Exemption denied due to 50 days delay in filing audit report Form 10B-Delay was condoned and directed to grant the exemption. [S. 11, 12A, 119(2)(b), Form No.10B, Art. 226]

Reserve Bank Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd v. PCCIT [2026] 309 Taxman 279 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Co-operative society-Delay in filing return-Genuine hardship-Shortage of departmental auditors empanelled under Odisha Cooperative Societies Act-Genuine hardship-Principal Chief Commissioner should have considered the application under Section 119(2)(b) appropriately by allowing the assessee to avail the benefit of Section 80P.[S.80P, 119(2)(b),139(1), Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 (OCS Act), S 62, Art . 226]

Manjit Singh Dhaliwal v. CIT (2026) 309 Taxman 129 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Return of income-Condonation of delay-For condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b), mere residence abroad, senior citizen status, or ignorance of tax laws does not constitute sufficient cause or genuine hardship; rejection of the condonation application is justified. [S. 119(2)(b), 139, Art. 226]