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. 37(1): Business expenditure-Broken period interest on purchase of securities-Securities held as stock-in-trade-Interest paid for broken period was allowable as deduction-SLP delay of 959 days-SLP dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [Art . 136]

CIT v. State Bank of India (2026) 309 Taxman 86 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. State Bank of India (2025) 170 taxmann.com 719 (Telengana)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Management fees-Excessive-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits.[Art. 136]

PCIT v. Anand Divine Developers P.Ltd.[2026] 309 Taxman 334 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Anand Divine Developers P. Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 353 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 32: Depreciation-Block of assets-Disallowance of depreciation on the ground that certain units had not been put to use during the year under consideration-depreciation is allowable on the entire block, as attribution to specific units is unnecessary once assets fall within a block.[S. 2(11)]

CIT v. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2026) 309 Taxman 118 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Assessee advancing objects of general public utility carried on activities resulting in incidental surplus, and quantitative limit prescribed under second proviso to section 2(15) was adhered to; such activities continued to qualify as charitable for purposes of section 11 of the Act. [S. 2(15), 260A]

CIT (E) v. Jaipur Development Authority (2026) 309 Taxman 354 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Providing systematic instructions or training which involves a process of teaching and learning amounts to “providing education” for purposes of section 2(15)-Mere generation of surplus would not be a ground to deny exemption to assessee under section 11 when the surplus so generated was used solely for educational purposes-Entitled to exemption. [S. 2(15), 12AA]

Deshpande Education Trust v. ACIT (2026) 349 CTR 93 / 309 Taxman 106 (Karn)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Consideration received by a non-resident for enabling live telecast of cricket matches did not extend beyond live feed and involved no transfer of copyright or derivative exploitation rights-Not taxable as royalty-DTAA-India-Sri Lanka [Art. 12].

CIT (IT) v. Sri Lanka Cricket [2026] 309 Taxman 200 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Off-the-shelf sale or supply of software without transfer of copyright cannot be treated as royalty-Delay of 598 days-Condonation of delay refused-SLP of revenue dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art.12(3) Art. 136]

CIT (IT) v. DXC Technology Services Singapore Pte. Ltd [2026]309 Taxman 242 / 486 ITR 425 (SC) Editorial: CIT (IT) v. DXC Technology Services Singapore (Pte.) Ltd. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 431 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent Establishment-Indian subsidiary carrying out onshore installation and promotional activities does not form a PE of the foreign parent where sales are concluded abroad-Software licensing fee without transfer of copyright is not royalty-DTAA-India-Italy-SLP dismissed. [S. 9(1)(vi), Art. 5, 13]

CIT (IT) v. Siemens Mobile Communication SPA [2026] 309 Taxman 414 (SC) Editorial: CIT(IT) v. Siemens Mobile Communication SPA [2026] 182 taxmann.com 852 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Subsidy/Grant-in-aid-Government financial assistance granted under a specific rehabilitation scheme to clear liabilities and rescue a cooperative from a financial crisis constitutes a capital receipt. [S. 28(i)]

Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2026] 309 Taxman 53 (Mad)(HC)

S. 282: Service of notice-Appellate Tribunal-Service of order of Tribunal-Service upon authorised representative-Limitation-Condonation of delay-Delay of 40 days-Condoned-Affidavit of Chartered Accountant-Section 254(3) of Act and Rule 35 of 1963 Rules mandate Tribunal to ensure service of order upon assessee. Service upon an authorised representative not substitute for service upon the assessee [S. 254 (3), 260A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Ο. 5, r. 12 Income-tax Act, 1961, 282 Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, r. 35 Information Technology Act, 2000, Chapter IV.]

Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. ACIT (2026) 485 ITR 80 (Bom.)Goa) (HC) Ajit Phatrapekar v. ACIT (2026) 485 ITR 80 (Bom.)Goa) (HC)