Direct Tax Part for April 2026

• NOTIFICATION G.S.R. 286(E) [NO. 64/2026/F. NO. 370142/41/2025-TPL], DATED 16-4-2026

The CBDT issues corrigendum to IT Rules 2026; drops mention of ‘Aadhaar’ instead of ‘PAN’ in several Income Tax forms.

• NOTIFICATION S.O. 1715(E) [NO. 56/2026/F. NO. 500/22/2022-FT&TR-V], DATED 2-4-2026

India–Japan MoU notified for mutual assistance in tax collection effective from 8 July 2025.

Important Judicial Precedents

• SLP disposed of: section 263 revision set aside as PCIT ignored assessee’s explanation that section 43B disallowed provision cannot be taxed on reversal

[2026] 185 taxmann.com 908 (SC) PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd

SLP disposed of against order of High Court that where Assessing Officer allowed deduction claimed by assessee in respect of reversal/writing back of provision for liabilities under section 43B created in earlier assessment years, since Principal Commissioner in revision order did not deal with explanation offered by assessee that reversal of a provision which was not allowed as an expense when created by virtue of section 43B, could not now be brought to tax upon its reversal/write back, revisionary order was to be set aside.

• Notional rent on vacant unsold stock-in-trade flats taxable as house property; ALV to be based on municipal value: ITAT

[2026] 185 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai – Trib.) Haware Engineers and Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

Where assessee, a builder-developer company, held unsold flats/shops as stock-in-trade and did not offer notional rent for vacant units, notional rental income on such vacant unsold properties was taxable under ‘income from house property’ and annual letting value should be computed based on municipal rateable value.

• Deduction u/s 80JJAA cannot be denied for delayed Form 10DA if available with CPC at return processing: ITAT

[2026] 185 taxmann.com 714 (Hyderabad – Trib.) AML Motors (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle-1

Where assessee obtained audit report in Form No. 10DA within prescribed time but could not upload same before due date due to technical glitches and subsequently filed Form No. 10DA before filing return of income, delay in filing same could not be a ground for denying deduction under section 80JJAA, and assessee was eligible for such deduction.

• Addition u/s 68 deleted as transaction was mere repayment recorded in books, not fresh loan in AY 2020-21:ITAT

[2026] 185 taxmann.com 602 (Delhi – Trib.) DCIT vs. Bright Buildtech (P.) Ltd.

Where assessee furnished all relevant confirmations, ITRs and bank statements regarding an unsecured loan received from a party, and no fresh loan was received in relevant year but only a journal entry was made, addition treating transaction as non-genuine was unjustified and warranted deletion as assessee need not prove source of source.

• SLP disposed of: reopening based on third party search invalid as no assessee specific material, notice beyond six years time barred.

[2026] 185 taxmann.com 729 (SC) DCIT vs. E Homes Infrastructure (P.) Ltd

SLP disposed of against order of High Court that where reassessment proceedings were initiated based on search in case of third-party, since no material belonging to assessee was found during search, provisions of section 153C were not applicable and reopening notice issued beyond six years from end of relevant assessment year was held to be time-barred under section 149.

• No penalty under sec. 270A as disallowance already made in intimation; bona fide claim with full disclosure:HC

[2026] 185 taxmann.com 495 (Bombay-HC) GM Modular (P.) ltd. vs. PCIT

Where disallowance under section 36(1)(va) was already made in intimation under section 143(1)(a) and merely reiterated in assessment, assessed income did not exceed processed income, and, hence, penalty for under-reporting under Section 270A was unsustainable, especially when claim was bona fide, fully disclosed and supported by jurisdictional precedent.

• Assessment order in name of non-existent entity after merger void ab initio, sec. 292B inapplicable: HC

[2026] 185 taxmann.com 411 (Delhi-HC) PCIT vs. Boeing India (P.) Ltd

Where final assessment order was passed in name of non-existent amalgamating company despite revenue having been informed of amalgamation prior to completion of assessment, and even TPO order and DRP directions were passed in name of amalgamated entity, such order was void ab initio and not a mere procedural irregularity curable under section 292B, and an alleged system or portal glitch could not cure this defect.

• Assessment quashed as notices sent to wrong email violated natural justice; fresh opportunity granted:HC

[2026] 185 taxmann.com 643 (Karnataka-HC) Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangh Ltd. vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

Where assessment and penalty orders were passed after notices in penalty proceedings were sent to an incorrect email address, thereby depriving assessee of effective opportunity of hearing, such proceedings were held violative of principles of natural justice and were quashed with liberty to file reply afresh to notice under section 143(2).

• Reassessment notice quashed as AO failed to obtain approval from correct authority under sec. 151(ii): HC

[2026] 185 taxmann.com 239 (Bombay-HC) Anil Gupta (P.) Family Trust vs. Income-tax Officer

Where Assessing Officer passed order under section 148A(d) and issued notice under section 148 under new regime after three years from end of relevant year, but prior approval was taken from Principal Commissioner instead of required Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent as per section 151(ii), such non-compliance with statutory sanction requirement vitiated jurisdiction and both order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 were liable to be quashed.

• Cash gift claim rejected u/s 68 as assessee failed to establish donor’s identity and source in hands of donor : HC

[2026] 185 taxmann.com 189 (Andhra Pradesh-HC) Bathina Srilakshmi vs. Income-tax Officer

Where assessee explained negative cash balance in books by claiming receipt of large cash gifts initially from ‘others’ and later in appeal as from her grandmother, but failed to establish source of such funds or donor’s creditworthiness, and firm from which alleged withdrawal was made had not filed return, explanation was rightly rejected and cash was treated as unexplained income.