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. 80G: Donation-Charitable activities, especially for the welfare of downtrodden, poor and destitute sections of society-Rejection order of CIT(E) was set aside by the High Court-SLP of the revenue was dismissed due to delay of 383 days and also on merits.[S. 12AAA, 80G(5), Art. 136]

CIT v. Mumukshu Mandal (2026) 308 Taxman 497 (SC) Editorial : Mumukshu Mandal(Regd), Shri Geeta Mandir v. CIT(2024) 300 Taxman 373/ (2025) 473 ITR 452 (P& H)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application money-Summons-Non-appearance of directors of assessee before Assessing Officer-Addition is not justified. [S. 131, 260A]

PCIT v. Jealous Commercial (P.) Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 80 (Cal)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Search-Statement on oath-Share application money-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition was affirmed.[S. 131, 132, 260A]

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

S. 68 : Cash credits-Failure to produce documentary evidence-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP of assessee dismissed.[Art. 136]

Harsha Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 165 (SC) Editorial : Harsha Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 727 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 56: Income from other sources-Search-Share premium-Since the Assessing Officer had not found any specific fault in rejecting or not being satisfied with the valuation made by the assessee, addition under section 56(2)(viib) was not justified. [S. 56(2)(viib), R.11UA]

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

S. 50B: Capital gains-Slump sale-Coca-Cola brand-Transfer of its entire bottling and marketing business as a going concern-Lump-sum basis-Revenue could not artificially fragment the transaction to tax portions thereof under different heads-Order of the Tribunal affirmed.[S.2(42C, 41(2), 260A]

CIT v. Spectra Shares and Scrips Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 141 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 48: Capital gains-Mode of Computation-Amount paid for termination of agreement-No legal obligation to pay the amount-Disallowance was affirmed-Commission paid-No evidence was produced-Disallowance was affirmed.[S. 260A]

Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 1 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 45: Capital gains-Sale of undertaking as a going concern-capital receipt-If the income from a source falls within a specific head, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the latter head. [S.4, 28(ii), 260A]

CIT v. Spectra Shares and Scrips Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 141 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Interest on agricultural income tax (AIT)-Not allowable as business expenditure.[S 10(1),40(a)(ii)]

Aspinwall and Company Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 321 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Expenses towards charitable purposes-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP delay of 621 days-SLP of revenue was dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [Art. 136]

CIT (E) v. Hyderabad Cricket Association (2026) 308 Taxman 238 (SC) Editorial: CIT (E) v. Hyderabad Cricket Association (2025) 180 taxmann.com 322 (Telangana) (HC)