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. 244A: Refunds-Interest on refunds-Order giving effect-Revenue was to be directed to pay interest or compensation at 6 per cent per annum on delayed payment of interest of Rs. 7.58 crores from 01-08-2023 till the date of payment of such interest. [S.244(IA) Art. 226]

Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd v. DIT(2026) 308 Taxman 581 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 222: Collection and recovery-Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer-Order of Tribunal attained finality-Tax demand was paid-Tax recovery officer was directed to lift the attachment.[S. 153A, 254(1), Art. 226]

J. Sekar v. TRO (2026) 308 Taxman 28 (Mad)(HC) K. Rethinam v. TRO (2026) 308 Taxman 102 (Mad)(HC)

S. 158BC: Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Incriminating material-Search-Retracted statement-No evidentiary value-Order of block assessment was quashed and set aside.[S. 132, 132 (4), 158B, 260]

Surabhi Shelters (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 211 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 153D: Assessment-Search and seizure-Approval-Single approval-Without reference to seized material or assessment records, such approval was invalid. [S.153A, 260A]

PCIT v. Shivgori Builders (P.) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 94 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Believe Constructions (P.) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 134 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Opportunity of cross-examination-Assessment founded on diaries and statement under section 132(4) of a third party-Cross-examination denied by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal-Violation of natural justice-Matters remanded for fresh adjudication after allowing cross-examination. [S. 132(4), 143(3), 153A, 260A]

Ador Ceramic (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 418 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 153C: Assessment-Search-Other person-Date of initiation of search-Date of handing over seized material-Since initiation of search was subsequent to 1-4-2021, provisions of section 153C would not apply and thus, impugned notice issued under section 153C was to be quashed-Notice invalid. [S.132, 153A, Art. 226]

Harigovind v. Asst. CIT (2026) 485 ITR 509 / 308 Taxman 188 (Mad)(HC) G. Ravindran (HUF) v. Asst. CIT (2026) 485 ITR 509 / 308 Taxman 188 (Mad)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Assessing Officer of searched party and third party was the same-Time limit of clause (ii) of third proviso to section 153B(1) shall apply which was 12 months from end of financial year in which search took place-Order was quashed. [S. 153B, Art. 226]

Vijay Bihari Kandhari v. Asst. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 400 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search and seizure-Satisfaction was recorded four years after search and two years after assessment of searched person-Notice was quashed and set aside. [S.132, 153A, Art. 226]

Parag Rameshbhai Gathani v. ITO, IT (2026) 308 Taxman 47 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search and seizure-Loose sheets-Satisfaction note-A sheet of paper containing typed entries and in loose form, not shown to form part of books of account regularly maintained by assessee-Satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and where a consolidated satisfaction note had been recorded for different assessment years, it would vitiate entire assessment proceedings-Power to transfer cases-No reasonable opportunity had been provided before transferring case and officer of Bangalore had sent Notice and Assessment order to assessee who was a resident of Delhi, it was in total violation of section 127-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 127, 132, Art. 136]

Dy. CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2026) 308 Taxman 75 (SC) Editorial : Dy.CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma(2024) 159 taxmann.com 179/ 469 ITR 197 (Karn)(HC)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search or requisition-No incriminating material-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition was affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 132, 260A]

P CIT, Central v. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 494 (Bom.)(HC)