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. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amalgamation-Depreciation-Demerger-Goodwill-Difference between net assets and shares to be issued credited as goodwill and depreciation allowed-Scrutiny assessment-Order of Tribunal setting aside revision order was affirmed by High Court-SLP delay of 658 days-SLP dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. [S.43(6), Art. 136]

PCIT v. Aculife Healthcare (P.) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 284 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Aculife Healthcare (P.) Ltd(2023) 155 taxmann.com 283/ (2025) 477 ITR 392 (Guj)(HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation of six months for filing a rectification application would commence from the date of communication of the order and not the date of the order itself. [S. 254(1),254(3), ITAT R. 1963, R. 9, 34A, Art. 226]

Accost Media LLP v. Dy. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 411 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Once the Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal by order dated 21-9-2011 and had directed adoption of 5 per cent profit ratio by modifying the assessment order, the Tribunal was not within its power to re-adjudicate issues and determine estimated income in the hands of the assessee afresh.[S. 254(1), 260A]

Devaraj v. ITO (2026) 308 Taxman 341 (Mad)(HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Interest on borrowed capital-Lease rent-Tribunal remanded disallowance without recording findings on business purpose and diversion of borrowed funds-Remand order passed by Tribunal liable to be set aside for fresh adjudication-Any sum received from employees-Tribunal, despite recording admitted delay in payment of employees’ contribution, remanded issue without recording reasons as to allowability, impugned remand order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside for fresh adjudication. [S. 36(1)(iii), 36(1)(va), 260A]

Pr. CIT, Central v. Lalitha Jewellery Mart (P) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 462 (Mad)(HC)

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)