Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Venkateshan R.V. v. Sanjay @ Sanjay Sait & Ors. (2026) 349 CTR 105 / 182 taxmann.com 845 (Mad)(HC)

S. 269ST: Mode of undertaking transactions-Intimation of heavy cash transaction to jurisdictional Income Tax Authorities in civil recovery suits pursuant to Supreme Court guidelines-Assessee could not be compelled to reveal his PAN to the debtors. [S.271DA]

Miraj Digvijay Shah v. Asst. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 389/183 taxmann.com 174 (Cal)(HC)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Search and seizure-Inspection of seized jewellery-Supply of reasons to the assessee not required under rule 112(13)-Power to reopen sealed package not predicated on information in possession of Revenue-Notice for inspection valid. [S. 132, Income-tax Rules, 1962, r. 112]

Bechtel Power Corporation & Anr. v. ACIT (2026) 349 CTR 803 (Delhi)(HC). Editorial : Bechtel Power Corporation & Anr. v. ACIT (2026) 349 CTR 807 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Review petition-Mistake apparent from record-Assessment-Processing of return-No error apparent when the matter was fully heard, and directions were issued to process returns in accordance with law-Review not maintainable-Assessment-Processing of return.[S.139, 143(3), 260A (7)]

Udayan Bhaskaran Nair v. Dy. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 545 / 183 taxmann.com 47 (Bom)(HC)

S. 245 : Refunds-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment of refund against demand cannot be made when prior demand is not evidenced by a valid demand notice/intimation-Foreign tax credit-Petitioner was entitled to credit of foreign taxes paid/withheld in UK as reflected in Form-16, notwithstanding that claim was not separately entered under Relief under Section 90/91 field of return-Held, yes-Whether demand for Assessment Year 2010-11 was to be deleted and refund, if any, was to be granted. [S.90, 91, 143(1), 156, Art. 226]

Pr. CIT v. HCL Infotech (P) Ltd. (2026) 349 CTR 609 / 184 taxmann.com 38 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 244A: Refund-Interest on refund-Technical glitch causing TDS credit not reflected in e-filed revised return though appearing in Form 26AS-Assessee promptly informed Assessing Officer and lodged complaint with CPC-Denial of interest by Assessing Officer on ground of lapse by assessee-Not justified-Under section 244A (2), power to exclude any period attributable to assessee vests only in Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, not Assessing Officer. [S. 154]

CIT v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (2026) 349 CTR 783 (Bom)(HC).

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Limitation-Filing of TDS statement-Limitation operates quarter-wise and not on an annual basis. [S. 201(1), 201(IA), 201(3), 260A, Rule 31A]

SFDC Ireland Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 729 / 182 taxmann.com 533 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 197: Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Foreign company-Earlier High Court orders granting nil rate-Certificate cannot be denied without recording a change in facts. [S. 6(3), Rule 28AA, Art. 226]

Sulvay Specialities India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT(IT). (2026) 349 CTR 1/ 183 taxmann.com 570 (Guj)(HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums-Remittances to a company of Singapore under a service agreement and was treated as assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on grounds of inadequate invoice descriptions-Assessing Officer failed to examine whether services ‘made available’ technical knowledge as per Article 12(4) of India-Singapore DTAA, such order was legally unsustainable-Order was quashed-DTAA-India-Singapore [S.9(1)(vi),201, Art. 12(4), Art. 226]

Saroj Kumar Sahoo v. NFAC (2026) 349 CTR 249/ 184 taxmann.com 90 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 158BA: Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Search under section 132 was conducted during pendency of assessment proceedings-Abatement under section 158BA(2), relief was denied as no material showed that the search concerned assessee in his individual status or revealed undisclosed income for the block period; consequently, writ challenging assessment and penalty proceedings was to be dismissed. [S. 132, 153A, Art. 226]

Pr. CIT v. Sanjay Jain (2026) 349 CTR 699 / 183 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153B: Assessment-Search-Limitation-Extension of limitation period due to a reference made to foreign authorities under a tax treaty-Reference must be valid under the specific provisions of the relevant protocol-Following search in AMQ group, Assessing Officer made FT&TR reference seeking Hong Kong information for assessment year 2017-18, since India-Hong Kong DTAA effective 30-11-2018 permitted exchange only for subsequent fiscal years, such reference was impermissible and no limitation extension under Explanation (ix) to section 153B was available-DTAA-India-Hong Kong. [S. 147, 148,260A Art. 26]