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

Interpretation of taxing statutes-Strict interpretation-Precedent-Judgment based on old, broader law cannot be used to interpret new, stricter provision.[S.36(1)(vii)]

National Co-Operative Development Corporation v. ACIT (2026) 484 ITR 193/ 308 Taxman 168 / 348 CTR 83 (SC) Editorial : Editorial : National Co-operative Development Corporation v. ACIT [2012] 204 Taxman 6 /[2013] 356 ITR 184 (Delhi) (HC) affirmed.

Interpretation of taxing statues-Strict interpretation-Where words are plain and unambiguous, court bound to give effect to their plain meaning-Whether language is “plain and unambiguous” to be determined within context-Legislative intent-Crucial where language is ambiguous and capable of multiple constructions-Legislative purpose primarily to be gathered from specific words used by Legislature-Where language plain and unambiguous, court cannot read words into statute on notion that they would better serve legislative purpose-Aids to construction-Memorandum Explaining Provisions of Bill can be used to derive meaning of provision.[S.44C, 37 (1)]

DIT (IT) v. American Express Bank Ltd. (2026) 484 ITR 137/ 308 Taxman 246 / 348 CTR 38 / 256 DTR 497 (SC) DIT(IT) v. Oman International Bank S.A. O.G (Now Doha Bank) 2026) 484 ITR 137/ 308 Taxman 246 / 348 CTR 38 / 256 DTR 497 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 55/[2004] 134 Taxman 682 (Bom) (HC) disapproved. DIT (IT) v. American Express Bank Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1294 of 2013, dated 1-4-2015(Bom)(HC) set aside

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Block assessment-Search and seizure-Review of order-Substantial question of law framed as regards applicability of correct clause/sub-clause of any section/sub-section of section 158BB was not answered by the court while deciding the appeal; the same, in itself, could not be a ground to review the order. [S. 143, 158BB(1) 158BC, CPC, 1908, O XLVII, R 1]

CIT v. Umang Agarwal [2025] 173 taxmann.com 541 / (2026) 484 ITR 87 (All)(HC) Editorial : CIT v. Umang Agarwal (2014) 365 ITR 164 (All)(HC), observation, explained.

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Substantial question of law-Question of law not earlier framed-Power to deal with necessary or incidental questions that arise-If parties had opportunity to address issues in dispute-Substantial question of law can be reframed. [Art. 136]

Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641/ 309 Taxman 2 (SC) Nalwa Investment Ltd. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641/ 309 Taxman 2 (SC) Abhinandan Tradex Ltd. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641/ 309 Taxman 2 (SC) Mansarover Tradex Ltd. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641/ 309 Taxman 2 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Nalwa Investment Ltd (2020) 427 ITR 229 (Delhi)(HC), affirmed.

S. 255: Appellate Tribunal-Procedure-Functions-Strictures-Duties-Remarks and observations of court in respect of Members of Tribunal-Interim application by Judicial Member and Accountant Member seeking expunction of paragraph of court’s order containing detrimental remarks and observations causing harm to reputation-Paragraph of judgment containing remarks and observations expunged-Expunction of remarks not to be construed as comment with regard to merits of case.[S.254(1), 260A]

Sanjay Garg v. Williamson Financial Services Ltd and CIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 220 / (2026) 484 ITR 400(Gauhati)(HC) Dr. Maish Board v. Williamson Financial Services Ltd and CIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 220 / (2026) 484 ITR 400(Gauhati)(HC) Editorial : Williamson Financial Services Ltd. v. CIT, (2025) 482 ITR 628 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Additional grounds-Challenge to validity of reassessment raised before Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected-Assessee in Department’s appeal filing application raising ground relating to validity of assessment-Tribunal justified in accepting ground and holding reassessment was on change of opinion and unsustainable in law.[S. 147, 148, (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, R. 27.]

CIT v. India Cements Ltd [2025] 180 taxmann.com 564 / (2026) 484 ITR 30 (Mad)(HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Limitation-Condonation of delay-Mistake of counsel by itself not always a sufficient ground-Delay of six years and 83 days-Order of Tribunal dismissing.

C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT (2025) 305 Taxman 217 (2026) 484 ITR 185 (MP)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed, C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v PCIT (2026) 484 ITR 192 / 307 Taxman 2 (SC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Limitation-Condonation of delay-Delay of six to seven years-Tribunal finding lack of bona fides and gross negligence on part of assessee-Assessee aware of orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) but tried to place responsibility on counsel-SLP of assessee dismissed. [Art. 136]

C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v PCIT (2026) 484 ITR 192 / 307 Taxman 2 (SC) Editorial : C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT(2025) 305 Taxman 217 / (2026) 484 ITR 185 (MP)(HC)

S. 158BC: Block assessment-Return-Search-Seizure of books of account-Return delayed-Tribunal treated delayed return as ‘non-est’ without considering impact of search and double taxation-Order was set aside, and matter was to be remanded for fresh adjudication. [S. 139(1), 158BB(1(ca), 158BC, 260A]

Umang Agarwall v. CIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 282 / (2026) 484 ITR 100 (All)(HC) Editorial : Refer, CIT v. Umang Agarwal (2014) 365 ITR 164 (All)(HC), CIT v. Umang Agarwal (2026) 484 ITR 87 (All)(HC)

S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Satisfaction note-Time limit for passing assessment order to be reckoned from 22-6-2022-Last date for passing assessment order has expired on 31-3-2024-Proceedings barred by limitation-Notice quashed and set aside.[S. 132, 153B, Art. 226]

Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT (2026) 484 ITR 741 (Delhi)(HC)