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
S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Revenue had accepted statutory compounding fee under section 279 in relation to alleged offences under sections 276B and 278B-Continuation of criminal proceedings after such compounding constituted abuse of process and liable to be quashed. [S. 278B, 279, Art.21, 226]
Jyotsana Investments Co. Ltd. v. R.K De (2026) 183 taxmann.com 293 / 349 CTR 406(Cal)(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]
Venkateshan R.V. v. Sanjay @ Sanjay Sait & Ors. (2026) 349 CTR 105 / 182 taxmann.com 845 (Mad)(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]
Miraj Digvijay Shah v. Asst. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 389/183 taxmann.com 174 (Cal)(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)]
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. 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]
Udayan Bhaskaran Nair v. Dy. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 545 / 183 taxmann.com 47 (Bom)(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]
Pr. CIT v. HCL Infotech (P) Ltd. (2026) 349 CTR 609 / 184 taxmann.com 38 (Delhi)(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]
CIT v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (2026) 349 CTR 783 (Bom)(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]
SFDC Ireland Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 729 / 182 taxmann.com 533 (Delhi)(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]
Sulvay Specialities India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT(IT). (2026) 349 CTR 1/ 183 taxmann.com 570 (Guj)(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]
Saroj Kumar Sahoo v. NFAC (2026) 349 CTR 249/ 184 taxmann.com 90 (Orissa)(HC)