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. 278B: Offences and prosecutions-Companies-Failure to pay tax deducted at source (TDS) within prescribed time limit-Summoning order-Disputed factual matters which must be tested at trial through evidence and cross-examination; summoning order passed against managing director was upheld. [S.276B, 278E, BNSS Act, S.528, CRPC, 482]
Dr. Manoj Khanna v. ITO (2026) 308 Taxman 455 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Willful attempt to evade tax-Sanction was given to the Deputy Director for initiating prosecution proceedings; hence, prosecution had to be launched by him alone and by the Assistant Director-Matter was settled in accordance with Section 93 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024-SLP was to be disposed of with the observation that judgment was not to be treated as precedent for any purpose. [S. 278BB, 279]
ADIT (Inv) v. Tirumala Tirupati Constructions India (P) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 235 (SC) Editorial : Tirumala Tirupati Constructions India (P) Ltd v. ADIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 363 (Telengana) (HC)
S. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-Order of High Court was stayed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.05.2025-Subsequently revenue had issued a notice for penalty under section 272A-Since order of High Court was already stayed by Supreme Court, penalty notice was also to be stayed.[S.68, Art, 136]
Dalmia Power Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 162 (SC) Editorial : ACIT v. Dalmia Power Ltd (2025) 305 Taxman 26 (Mad)(HC), stayed.
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Failure to specify the charge-No specific limb was struck off-The Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty.[S.68, 260A, 274]
PCIT v. Chetan Gupta (2026) 308 Taxman 565 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Income from other sources-Deductions-Tax effect was below the monetary threshold limit of Rs. 2 crores as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, dated 17-9-2024, appeal was to be dismissed for low tax effect. [S.56, 57(iii), 260A]
PCIT v. Milestone Real Estate Fund (2026) 308 Taxman 560 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 264: Commissioner-Revision of other orders-82-year-old woman-Order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the application was set aside and remanded to the Commissioner to re-examine the assessment of the assessee and pass appropriate orders. [S. 139, Art.226]
Shushilaben Jayantibhai Patel v. PCIT (2026) 308 Taxman 68(Guj.)(HC)
S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation-Amalgamation-Demerger-There was no error per se in the order of assessment, and the direction under the order of revision amounted to a mere roving enquiry and the same was set aside.[S.2(19AA), 2(IB), 72A(2), 72A(4)]
CIT v. Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 588 (Mad)(HC)
S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Slump sale-assessment order did not address the issue with reference to competing provisions; exercise of power under Section 263 was justified.[S.45, 50B]
Sterling Farm Research and Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 121 (Kerala)(HC)
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)