March 2026

In this landmark transfer pricing ruling, the Visakhapatnam ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of a Rs.66.4 million adjustment for notional interest on receivables from Associated Enterprises. The Tribunal reinforced the critical principle that for debt-free companies with robust capital reserves, where the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) already exceeds comparable benchmarks and is accepted as at arm’s length, no separate imputation of interest on delayed trade receivables is permissible. The decision underscores that higher pricing to AEs inherently compensates for extended credit, and the Revenue must demonstrate systematic undue credit extension or use of interest-bearing funds—neither of which was established here. This judgment provides significant clarity and relief for multinational enterprises on the treatment of trade credit in transfer pricing, aligning with judicial precedents that prevent double adjustments.

In a landmark ruling, the ITAT, Cuttack, in ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust (ASBM Trust), decisively upheld the charitable exemption for educational trusts under Sections 11-13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal affirmed that capital expenditure on essential infrastructure—such as buildings and facilities for education—constitutes a legitimate ‘application of income’ for charitable purposes, rejecting the Revenue’s narrow interpretation. It clarified that generating surplus from student fees and reinvesting it in capital assets does not taint charitable status with commerciality, provided the trust’s objects remain genuinely educational. The judgment further validated reasonable trustee remuneration as non-violative of Section 13, distinguished finishing school activities as integral to education, and refuted allegations of capitation fees without substantive proof. This ruling reinforces the principle that charitable trusts can expand and modernize their infrastructure without forfeiting tax benefits, offering crucial clarity for educational institutions navigating exemption claims.

In this landmark ruling, the Ahmedabad ITAT delved into the nuanced interpretation of ‘deemed dividend’ under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case centered on loans received by a shareholder from two closely held companies, where the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) had treated these as taxable deemed dividends. The Tribunal’s analysis pivoted on the exclusionary clause (ii), emphasizing that loans made in the ordinary course of business, with money lending as a substantial part, are exempt. Critically, the Tribunal rejected technical formalities like Memorandum of Association specifics or licensing requirements, focusing instead on substantive business metrics—holding that over 20% of assets deployed in lending qualifies as ‘substantial.’ Additionally, the payment of market-rate interest with TDS underscored the commercial, non-gratuitous nature of the transactions, negating dividend characterization. This decision reinforces a purposive interpretation of tax provisions, prioritizing economic substance over legal form, and offers clarity for shareholders and companies engaged in legitimate lending activities.

INDIAN ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ITAT Mumbai): This judgment addresses a critical issue on interest payable on tax refunds under section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For AY 1991-92, the assessee sought interest on refund of excess TDS and advance tax, which was granted after 14 years due to adjustment against earlier demands. The AO and CIT(A) denied interest, citing the proviso to section 244A(1)(a), which excludes interest if the refund is less than 10% of the total tax. The Tribunal, upholding revenue’s stance, conducted a detailed analysis of section 244A, distinguishing it from older provisions (sections 214, 243, 244) and precedents. It reinforced the principle of strict statutory interpretation, refusing to read exceptions into the law. The decision underscores that for refunds arising from advance tax or TDS, the 10% threshold under section 244A(1)(a) is mandatory, and no interest accrues below it, regardless of delay or character of payment. This ruling clarifies the application of section 244A post-1989 amendments and emphasizes revenue’s statutory discretion in interest computation.

In this landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court reinforced the strict requirement of valid service of notice under section 148 for reassessment proceedings. The Court annulled the reassessment for AY 1999-2000, ruling that sending notice to an old address—despite the assessee’s subsequent participation—does not constitute proper service. This decision underscores that service is a jurisdictional prerequisite, not waivable by conduct, protecting assessees from arbitrary reopening of assessments. Legal professionals must ensure notices are dispatched to current addresses to avoid invalidation.

In a landmark ruling, the Gauhati ITAT affirmed that interest income from fixed deposits, created from business advances to secure essential bank guarantees and overdraft facilities, constitutes business income eligible for deductions under sections 80HH, 80-I, and 32AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized the ‘direct and proximate nexus’ test, holding that where deposits are made under business compulsion and are inextricably linked to operational activities, the resultant interest is derived from the business. This decision reinforces the principle that the character of income depends on the purpose and nexus of the underlying transaction, not merely its form, providing clarity for industrial undertakings utilizing financial instruments for operational needs.

In this landmark block assessment appeal, the ITAT Agra Bench delineates the jurisdictional boundaries between block and regular assessments. The Court emphatically rules that only income unearthed during search/requisition can be assessed under section 158BC, excluding belatedly disclosed income or post-search enquiry findings. This reinforces the principle of nexus. Simultaneously, the judgment adopts a pragmatic approach to procedural irregularities, invoking section 292B to uphold assessments where technical notice defects (like omitted status or minor period errors) cause no actual prejudice and the assessee’s participation is substantive. This dual holding provides clarity for practitioners: while the scope of block assessment is strictly confined, hyper-technical objections are disfavored where the core assessment process remains fair and unimpaired.

In this landmark reassessment case, the Bombay High Court reinforces the principle that reopening of assessment, even within the four-year period, cannot be based on a ‘mere change of opinion’ but must be founded on ‘tangible material.’ The Revenue’s attempt to reassess ICICI Bank for AY 1996-97, alleging excess deduction u/s.36(1)(viii), was struck down as the reasons were vague and the reassessment order introduced a new ground. The Court meticulously dissected the requirements of Section 147, citing Supreme Court precedents like Kelvinator of India, to hold that the AO’s action amounted to an impermissible review, not reassessment. This judgment is a critical shield for taxpayers against arbitrary reopening, underscoring that full disclosure in original assessments precludes reopening on the same material.