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. 143(3): Assessment-Demerger-Amalgamation-Effect of order of Tribunal or court in respect of business reorganisation-Post-completion of assessment that considered modified return under section 170A, Assessing Officer had become functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to reassess the same matter by issuing fresh notices-Ad interim relief was granted. [S. 143(2), 170A, Art. 226]
Bajaj Electricals Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 500 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 143(3): Assessment-Merger-Amalgamation-Final assessment order was passed in the name of a non-existent entity; the order was quashed. [S. 144C, 260A]
PCIT v. IPSOS Research (P.) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 492 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 132B: Application of seized or requisitioned assets-Search and seizure-Seizure of jewellery-Liability was settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-Continued detention of jewellery on tax demand of joint locker holder was held to be illegal-Directed to release the jewellery. [S. 132, 153A, Art. 226]
Jigishaben Minesh Patel v. Asst. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 609 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 132: Search and seizure-Panchanama-Stock in trade-Gold jewellery was in custody of IT Department long before Panchanama was prepared and it was shown that said jewellery was stock-in-trade of assessee-Action taken by IT Department was contrary to law-Panchanama and consequential order dated 14-3-2025 were quashed and said seized gold jewellery was to be released to the assessee. [S. 131(IA), Art. 226]
H. K. Jewels (P) Ltd v. ADIT(Inv)(2026) 308 Taxman 61 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 131 : Power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc.-Authorities mentioned in section 131 are vested with the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which includes enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath-Tribunal was not justified in holding that statements recorded under section 131 had no evidentiary value merely on that ground. [S. 68, 254(1), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908]
Pr. CIT, Central v. Lalitha Jewellery Mart (P) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 462 (Mad)(HC)
S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Co-operative housing Society-Delay in filing of return-Order of CIT rejecting application of assessee-society seeking condonation of delay was to be set aside-Assessee was allowed to file a fresh return within a period of one month-[S.80P, 119(2)(b), 139, Art. 226]
Mahernagar Co-Op. Housing Service Society Ltd. v. CCIT (2026) 308 Taxman 56 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Property held for charitable purposes-Delay of 1128 days-Form No 10B-Change of Chartered Accountant-Delay was condoned-Directed to grant exemption in accordance with law. [S.11, 119(2)(b), 139(4), 143(1), Art. 226]
Shamal Mohan Patil Education Society v. CIT (E) (2026) 308 Taxman 381 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Affidavit-Old age-Undertook to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 as costs-Delay of 38 days and 69 days in filing for 10B and Form No. 10-Delay was condoned-Respondent was directed to grant exemption as per law. [S.11,139(4), 143(1), Form No 10, Form No 10B, Art. 226]
Dakuben Saremalji Sancheti (Nadol Charitable Trust) v. CIT, Exemption (2026) 308 Taxman 506 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Delay of 523 days in filing Form No.10-Mistake of Chartered Accountant-Delay was condoned-Court directed the CIT(E) to grant relief as per the law. [S.11(2), 119(2)(b), 143(1), Art. 226, Form No.10]
St. Anne’s School v. CIT (E) (2026) 308 Taxman 90 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Received a grant eight days before year-end-Form No 9A-There was no requirement to file Form 9A-It could not be said that assessee had delayed filing of Form 9A, and the order was set aside. [S. 11(1), Form 9A, Form 10B, Art. 226]
Swasth Foundation v. CIT (E) (2026) 308 Taxman 221 (Bom.)(HC)