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. 147: Reassessment-Within four years-Deemed dividend-Interest-free loan from company-Earlier reassessment and proposed addition as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) was dropped-Subsequent reopening by invoking section 2(24)(iv) on the same loan amounted to mere change of opinion and was impermissible-Reassessment notice and order disposing of the objection were quashed. – Strictures – Subjecting the petitioner to reassessment proceedings a second time for the self-same transaction and practically for the same issue is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. They fall foul of the petitioner’s fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. A Cost of Rs .1,00,000 was imposed upon the respondent for each of the assessee.[S. 2(22)(e), 2(24(iv), 148, Art. 14, 19(1)(g) , 300A , 226]

Radhika Roy v. Dy. CIT [2026] 309 Taxman 72/348 CTR 601 (Delhi)(HC)/Dr .Prannoy Roy v . Dy. CIT [2026] 309 Taxman 72 /348 CTR 601 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Notice for reassessment to examine the issue of depreciation already examined by the AO during the course of original assessment is untenable and liable to be quashed-SLP dismissed on account of delay of 426 days as well as on merits. [S. 32, Art . 136]

ACIT v. Adani Power Ltd. (2026) 309 Taxman 241 (SC) Editorial : Adani Power Ltd v. ACIT (2024) 300 Taxman 484 (Guj)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Notice issued on the ground that dividend income does not qualify for exemption under section 10 (34) of the Act-issue of exemption claimed by the assessee was duly examined during the original assessment proceedings-notice is based on change of opinion and the same is void ab initio-SLP dismissed on account of delay of 124 days as well as on merits. [S.10(34), 115-O, Art . 136]

ACIT v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2026) 309 Taxman 497 (SC) Editorial : Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. ACIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 103/ 478 ITR 358 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Reassessment notices issued merely on the basis of third-party search information, without any material linking the assessee to the alleged escaped income and with reasons recorded mechanically without independent application of mind, are invalid and quashed; SLP dismissed. [S. 69, 132, 148 Art. 136]

ITO v. Amitkumar Chandulal Rajani (2026) 309 Taxman 332 (SC) Editorial: Amitkumar Chandulal Rajani v. ITO [2025] 173 taxmann.com 302 (Guj)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Within four years-Audit objection-CSR expenditure-Notice and order disposing of the objection were quashed by the High Court-SLP of the revenue dismissed. [S. 37(1) 148, Art, 136]

ACIT v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. (2026) 309 Taxman 1 (SC) Editorial: Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd v .ACIT (2023) 292 Taxman 475/ 454 ITR 734 (Guj)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Lease rent-Unrealised gain-Depreciation-Absence of fresh tangible material-Reopening cannot be initiated on repetitive lease rent transactions accepted in past scrutiny assessments, unearned/unrealized foreign exchange hedging variations, or by applying prospective amendments on goodwill depreciation retroactively-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 32(1), 37(1),43(6) (c), 148, Art. 136]

Dy. CIT v. GTPL Hathway Ltd.[2026] 309 Taxman 244/488 ITR 636 (SC) Editorial: GTPL Hathway Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 616 (Guj)(HC).

S. 145: Method of accounting-Income-Accrual-Real income theory-Interest accrued on NPA loans is taxable where the assessee’s own conduct, such as extending further credit to the same borrowers, shows a realistic prospect of recovery; RBI Prudential Norms do not govern taxability under the Income-tax Act. [S. 4, 5]

Pact Securities & Financial Services Ltd. v. Dy CIT (2026) 309 Taxman 374 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Time limit-Final assessment order to be passed within one month from the end of the month in which the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are received-Order passed about five months late-Timeline is mandatory-Order, computation sheet and demand notice quashed. [S. 143, 144B, 156]

Zynga Game Network India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2026) 309 Taxman 322 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Failure to provide personal hearing through video conferencing against proposed variation and video conference was duly scheduled-Assessing Officer passed final order before such hearing-Order violated section 144B(6)(vii) and principles of natural justice-Order was quashed and set aside . [S. 143(3),144B(6)(vii), Art . 226]

Sanjiv Manoharlal Sethi v .Dy .CIT (2026) 309 Taxman 311 (Bom)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Non-existing entity-Order passed in the name of non-existing amalgamated entities despite revenue’s knowledge-Application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC allowed-SLP dismissed. [S. 143, 260A, CPC Order XLI Rule 27, Art. 136]

Dy. CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2026] 309 Taxman 501/488 ITR 624 (SC). Editorial: Reliance Industries Ltd. v. P. L. Roongta [2025] 171 taxmann.com 467 /479 ITR 770 (Bom)(HC)