The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →LiveLawBiz’s September 28–October 4, 2026 roundup reports a Supreme Court dismissal, a pending challenge, several High Court rulings on reassessment procedure and limitation, and ITAT decisions on treaty treatment, transfer pricing and capital-gains exemptions. The outcomes are case-specific summaries, not a single nationwide rule.
Kapil Dhyani’s LiveLawBiz roundup, published October 7, 2026, covers reported decisions and developments before the Supreme Court, several High Courts and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amounts below belong to the particular disputes described; they are not aggregate tax figures. LiveLawBiz is the source for the case details and summaries here. Check the underlying decision and its procedural status before relying on a reported holding for legal advice.
Supreme Court: one dismissal and one challenge still pending
Ernst & Young US LLP: secondment payments
LiveLawBiz reports that Ernst & Young US LLP approached the Supreme Court to challenge a Delhi High Court ruling that payments connected with US employees sent to work with Indian entities were taxable as fees for technical services. The dispute, as summarized, is whether the payments represented reimbursement of salary and employment costs or consideration for technical services under the India–US tax treaty. The report describes a challenge, not a Supreme Court decision on the merits.
Tata Realty: Section 14A and premises-vacating payment
The Supreme Court dismissed the Income Tax Department’s plea against a Bombay High Court order dismissing the Department’s appeal. The reported dispute concerned a Section 14A disallowance despite the absence of exempt income, and whether Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. could deduct ₹2.5 crore paid to vacate premises so it could occupy them under a 60-month leave-and-licence arrangement. LiveLawBiz lists Diary No. 51036/2026 and citation “2026 LLBiz SC 322.”
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
High Courts: reassessment procedure and time limits
Several reported High Court matters address steps or limitation periods in reassessment and related proceedings. Their outcomes turn on different statutory provisions and case facts; they should not be read as interchangeable rulings.
| Case and forum | Reported issue and outcome | Reference in LiveLawBiz |
|---|---|---|
| H. P. Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 14(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. — Bombay High Court | The Assessing Officer must decide objections to reopening by a speaking order before proceeding with scrutiny. The court treated issue of a Section 143(2) notice as proceeding with assessment. | Writ Petition No. 3233 of 2019; “2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 544.” |
| GFK Mode Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. — Calcutta High Court | An objection to a draft assessment was not time-barred when the 30-day deadline fell on Sunday, March 15, 2026, and the filing was made on the next working day, March 16. The report says the decision was delivered September 24. | WPA 17247 of 2026; “2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 236.” |
| Kapoor Industries Limited — Delhi High Court | The court stayed reassessment proceedings concerning ₹17.66 crore after noting that the same Assessing Officer had already accepted that amount as belonging to the company and offered to tax as cash sales. The challenge concerned a Section 148 notice for AY 2024–25. | W.P.(C) 9137/2026; “2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1029.” |
| Shree Aggarsain North Ex Welfare Society — Delhi High Court | The court quashed a Section 153C notice for AY 2010–11 as beyond the applicable limitation under Sections 153A and 153C. The notice was dated February 15, 2024; the satisfaction note was dated February 7, 2024. The report quotes the court: “impugned notice is, thus, time-barred.” | W.P.(C) 4168/2024. |
| Preeti Chadha — Delhi High Court | The court quashed a Section 153C notice for AY 2016–17 as beyond the prescribed limitation. The notice was dated July 25, 2022, and the satisfaction note June 16, 2022. | W.P.(C) 580/2024; “2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1060.” |
Other High Court developments
Delayed return-condonation request during appeal
In Rajgrin Infralink LLP, the Gujarat High Court said a request under Section 119(2)(b) to condone delay in filing a return could be considered after assessment while an appeal remained pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The report notes the court’s reasoning that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the power to condone the delay, and that the taxpayer’s application to the authority under Section 119(2)(b) fits the statutory scheme. The matter is R/Special Civil Application No. 20021 of 2023, citation “2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 140.”
Rank #2
Section 14A disallowance in Adani Infrastructure Services
The Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of a ₹23.77 crore disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) in Adani Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd. The reported reasons include interest income exceeding interest expenditure and borrowed funds being advanced back-to-back. LiveLawBiz lists R/Tax Appeal No. 144 of 2016 and citation “2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 144.”
Black Money Act assessment for the wrong year
In Mrs. Hind Sennoun v. Union of India, the Karnataka High Court quashed an assessment under the Black Money Act because the foreign assets had been assessed in the wrong year. According to the report, the assets predated the Act and no declaration had been made under Section 59; under Section 72(c), they were deemed acquired in the year of the first notice under Section 10. The case is Writ Petition No. 16540 of 2021 (T-IT), citation “2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 174.”
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Other Delhi High Court orders
- Devi Dayal Aggarwal: The court directed the Income Tax Department to open a locker seized for more than 30 years after the tax dispute had been finalized by the ITAT. The petitioner alleged that the Assessing Officer had not given effect to an ITAT order from 2004. Reference: W.P.(C) 1565/2011; “2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1045.”
- Neeraj Kukreja v. ITO: The court questioned the Department about two PANs associated with the same person and directed it to produce records for both. The petitioner said he held one PAN and had neither applied for nor obtained the second. Reference: W.P.(C) 1009/2024.
- Sahara India group appeals: The court directed pending income-tax appeals to be heard by the Delhi ITAT bench although the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction was in Lucknow. The report says more than 100 related group appeals were already before the Delhi bench and both sides preferred that venue. Reference: W.P.(C) 9868/2026; “2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1055.”
- Zoom Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.: The court dismissed a challenge to Sections 148A(3) and 148 because a coordinate bench had already rejected an identical challenge for the preceding assessment year. Reference: W.P.(C) 13064/2026; “2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1056.”
ITAT: treaty characterization of payments
Referral commission under the India–Netherlands treaty
In Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V., the ITAT held, as reported, that customer-referral commission did not qualify as fees for technical services under Article 12(5)(b) of the India–Netherlands DTAA where the service did not make technical knowledge, skill or know-how available to the Indian entity. The appeal concerned ₹2.96 crore received from Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2022–23. Reference: ITA No. 1948/Del/2025; “2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 285.”
Cricket broadcast and player-release payments under the India–UK treaty
The ITAT held that live cricket broadcasting fees were not royalty taxable in India under the India–UK DTAA. It also held that a ₹6.26 crore release fee paid by IPL franchises for English players’ participation was not taxable in India under Article 18. These reported outcomes concern the England and Wales Cricket Board Limited’s appeal for AY 2023–24. Reference: ITITA 41/DEL/2026; “2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 286.”
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.ITAT: transfer pricing, insolvency claims and capital gains
Captive-power benchmarking
In Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, the ITAT said rates paid by the company’s cement units to state power distribution companies could be used as internal comparable uncontrolled prices (CUPs) to benchmark captive-power transfers. It also held that the 2013 amendment on specified domestic transactions did not require captive power to be benchmarked against generator-to-distribution-company rates. The appeals were ITA Nos. 7766/Mum/2026 and 7767/Mum/2026; citation “2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 287.”
Tax claims in Sahara Airlines’ insolvency proceedings
The ITAT dismissed the Department’s appeals in Sahara Airlines Ltd. (now Jet Lite (India) Ltd.), finding, as summarized, no material showing that the tax claims for the relevant years had been admitted in resolution or liquidation proceedings. The report notes that the CIRP of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. was admitted by the NCLT on June 20, 2019, on an application by State Bank of India. LiveLawBiz lists ITA Nos. 2471, 2473 to 2475, 3128, 2992/Del/2011; ITA Nos. 2167/Del/2007, 776/Del/2009, 2082/Del/2015; ITA No. 707/LKN/2002; and C.O. No. 72/LKN/2005. Citation: “2026 LLBiz ITAT(DEL) 284.”
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Two adjoining flats and capital-gains exemptions
In Amit Mahendrakumar Mehta, the ITAT held that two adjacent flats amalgamated into one residential unit could qualify for exemptions under Sections 54 and 54F where the earlier flat had lost its independent existence. Reference: ITA No. 599/MUM/2026; “2026 LLBiz ITAT(MUM) 288.”
Quick Recap
How to use this weekly roundup
- Treat each result as tied to its facts, statutory provision, treaty and procedural posture; a reported order in one dispute does not by itself establish a rule for every taxpayer.
- For a live matter, confirm the full judgment, case number, dates and subsequent procedural history. This is especially important where the report describes a stay, a challenge filed, or a ruling based on a particular assessment year.
- Use the statutory provision or treaty article identified in the report as a starting point, then check its applicable version and the relevant assessment-year facts before drawing a conclusion.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
