RAM SHANTMAL SONKAMBALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on April 2, 2022, is bad in law. This decision is based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court and subsequent High Court judgments.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary issue is the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on April 2, 2022, for reassessment.
What were the issues?
The key legal issue is whether the reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16 after the prescribed time limits, considering the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, is valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 149,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आदेश /ORDER
PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2015-16 on 30.12.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 24.01.2024.
Findings and Analysis:
We have heard both the parties and perused the record. The Ld. AR raised legal ground in the grounds of appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 02.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 is time barred and hence
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
reassessment is bad in law. The Ld. AR relied on the decisions filed during the proceedings.
The Ld. DR filed written submission. The gist of written submission filed by the Ld. DR is as under : “Conclusion: 4.0 The interpretation that views the first proviso as an overriding "veto" over the rest of the section goes against the established principles of law. The first proviso specifies that a notice cannot be issued if it "could not have been issued at that time" under the old law. This phrase "at that time" refers to the limitation status as of 01.04.2021. Since AY 2015-16 was not barred as of 01.04.2021, the first proviso does not prohibit the issuance of the notice; it merely limits the Revenue's ability to use the new 10-year window for cases that were already dead under the 6-year window. To give primacy to the first proviso over the third proviso fails the test of harmonious interpretation. It also creates absurd situation where after 01.04.2021, the Revenue is expected to comply with the new Section 148A (natural justice) but is denied the time-exclusion benefits specifically provided to facilitate that compliance. The third proviso to Section 149(1) is essential to the working of the new assessment. Any interpretation which renders third proviso otiose is not as per the letter and spirit of the law. Lastly, the third proviso accommodates the Judicial intervention. The overruling of the third proviso may lead to unintended consequence of impinging on the scope of exercise of the powers by Constitutional courts. 4.1 Thus, in view of the above, though the notice u/s 148 was issued on 02.04.2022, through the application of third proviso to section 149(1) is legally indistinguishable from a notice issued on or before 31.03.2022.”
It is fact that in this case notice u/s 148 was issued for AY 2015-16 on 02.04.2022. The issue has been decided against the assessee by various decisions. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mazharhusain Abdulrahuf Bagwan Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2329/PUN/2025 for AY 2015-16, dated 25.05.2026 has considered the written submission of the Ld. DR and held that notice u/s 148 for AY 2015-16 in April, 2022
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
was bad in law. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced here as under : 8. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for the relevant AY 2015-16 under consideration on 06.04.2022 (page 1 of the paper book refers). Under the old provisions of section 149, which is applicable for the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16, the notice u/s 148 would not have been issued beyond the period of 6 years from end of the relevant assessment year. The period of 6 years from the AY 2015-16 lapse on 31.03.2022. As stated earlier, in the instant case, notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 06.04.2022 which is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed under the said provisions of the Act. Although, the Ld. DR has vehemently argued against the legal ground raised by the assessee, we find that the Revenue has also conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) that the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) is not applicable to the notices issued for AY 2015-16. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below : “19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:
a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to provide relief and relaxation to both the assesses and the Revenue during the time of COVID-19. TOLA seeks to relax actions and proceedings that could not be completed or complied with within the original time limits specified under the Income Tax Act;
b. Section 149 of the new regime provides three crucial benefits to the assesses: (i) the four-year time limit for all situations has been reduced to three years; (ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that re-assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years; and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re- assessment for previous assessment years;
c. The relaxations provided under Section 3(1) of TOLA apply “notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act.” Section 3(1), therefore, overrides the time limits for issuing a notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income Tax Act;
d. TOLA does not extend the life of the old regime. It merely provides a relaxation for the completion or compliance of actions following the procedure laid down under the new regime;
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re- assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income Tax Act, PART C including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below:
Assessment Within 3 Expiry of Within Expiry of Year Years Limitation six Years Limitation read with read with TOLA (or (2) TOLA for (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3- TOLA not 31-3- 30-6-2021 2017 applicable 2020 2014-2015 31-3- TOLA not 31-3- 30-6-2021 2018 applicable 2021 2015-2016 31-3- TOLA not 31-3- TOLA not 2019 applicable 2022 applicable 2016-2017 31-3- 30-6-2021 31-3- TOLA not 2020 2023 applicable 2017-2018 31-3- 30-6-2021 31-3- TOLA not 2021 2024 applicable
f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;
g. Section 2 of TOLA defines “specified Act” to mean and include the Income Tax Act. The new regime, which came into effect on 1 April 2021, is now part of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income Tax Act even after 1 April 2021; and
h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under Section 148 of the new regime between July and August 2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground that they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will completely
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
frustrate the judicial exercise undertaken by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra).
Similarly, at para 46 of the order the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.”
Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 114 of the order has observed as under: “G. Conclusions
In view of the above discussion, we conclude that:
a. After 1 April 2021, the Income Tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions;
b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021;
c. Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income Tax Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148;
d. TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(i) has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval;
e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
specified authority under Section 151(2) has extended time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval;
f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021;
g. The time during which the show cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), and the period of two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices; and h. The assessing officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside;”
Recently in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma, order dated 13.10.2025 (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: “6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the present petition relates to A.Y.2015-16. Further, it is also undisputed that the notice under Section 148 has been issued on 5th April 2022 which is at page 52 of the paperbook. Once these are the facts, paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) become relevant. They read as under:- 19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue:- ....... e. The Finance Act 2021 substitute the old regime for reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income-tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013- 2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017- 2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment Within 3 Expiry of Within six Expiry of Year Years Limitation Years Limitation read with read with
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
TOLA for (2) TOLA for (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2013-2014 31-3- TOLA not 31-3- 30-6-2021 2017 applicable 2020 2014-2015 31-3- TOLA not 31-3- 30-6-2021 2018 applicable 2021 2015-2016 21-3- TOLA not 31-3- TOLA not 2019 applicable 2022 applicable 2016-2017 31-3- 30-6-2021 31-3- TOLA not 2020 2023 applicable 2017-2018 21-3- 30-6-2021 31-3- TOLA not 2021 2024 applicable
. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;" (emphasis supplied) 7. From the above it is clear, that the Department has conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 for A.Y.2015-16 have to be dropped. In the present case, the Notice under Section 148 is dated 5th April 2022 and therefore, has to be dropped.
The decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Limited (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020."
As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. (emphasis supplied) 9. Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon paragraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- "5. In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e) and (f) in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned." 10. Lastly, this very Bench has on 6th October 2025, in the matter of Spicy Sangria (supra), allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 1st April 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148 dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.”
Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Verjinia Foods Ltd., order dated 06.10.2025 holding as under : “17. Accordingly, we hold that the Notice under Section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 issued on 5th April 2022 was barred by limitation and ought to have been dropped pursuant to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). We also agree with the submission of both the parties, that the Notice issued on 5th April 2022 under Section 148 is also bad in law in view of the decision of this Court in Hexaware (supra).
Since the Notice issued on 5th April 2022[wrongly mentioned as 6th April 2024] under Section 148 was already quashed by order dated 9th May 2024 passed in the above Writ Petition, the consequent order of reassessment dated 3rd March
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
2025 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, the Notice of Demand dated 3rd March 2025 issued under Section 156 and all the notices proposing to impose penalty under Section 271F, Section 271(1)(b) and Section 271(1)(c) and any order/notice, if any, emanating therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside.” 13. The case of the assessee also finds support from the various decisions of the Mumbai as well as Pune Tribunal wherein the Tribunal in turn relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) has decided the impugned issue in favour of the assessee. 14. In view of the factual matrix of the case and legal position set above and in the absence of any contrary material/judicial precedent brought on record by the Revenue, we hold that the impugned notice issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2022 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered academic in nature and therefore not adjudicated.
Thus, the facts in the case of Mazharhusain Abdulrahuf Bagwan and the facts in hand are identical. Similarly, the Tribunal in the case of Satyaprem Rajabhau Dhole Vs. ITO in ITA No. 368/PUN/2025 for AY 2015-16, dated 12.02.2026 held that notice u/s 148 for AY 2015-16 dated 07.04.2022 is bad in law.
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT [2025] 476 ITR 369 (SC)[02-04-2025] held as under : Quote, “4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to at hree judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC2693/[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), more particularly, paragraph 19(f)which reads thus:- "19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020." 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed. 7. The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside.” Unquote.
The above referred decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court was respectfully followed by Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayurekumar Babubhai Patel Vs. ACIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 25 (Gujarat). The Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court held as under : Quote, “15. Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the respondent Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after the period of six years were over on 31.03.2022. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd (supra) and in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court for the Assessment Year 201516, all the notices issued on or after01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and therefore, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the matters as the notice so far as the present petitions are concerned, though dated 31.03.2021, admittedly have been issued after 01.04.2021. 16. It is also not in dispute that the notices under section 148A(b) have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) dated 04.05.2022 admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act dated 27/28/29.07.2022 would be time barred.”Unquote.
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
Similarly, Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the decision of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma Vs. ITO(IT) Mumbai held as under : Quote.“11. In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered.” Unquote.
ITAT Visakahapatnam in the case of Bhargav Ram Munagapati Vs. ITO in ITA No.510/VIZ/2025 vide order dated 21.11.2025 has held as under : Quote, “”13. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (supra) and consistently following the view taken in ITA No. 251/VIZ/2025, we are of theview that re-assessment proceedings initiated for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the instant case are without jurisdiction and hence assessment completed u/s. 147 of the Act consequent to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 03.04.2022 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Since the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee by quashing the re- assessment order the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not adjudicated. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” Unquote.
Similar view has taken by ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Vishnu Subhash Agarwal Vs. ITO in ITA No.2881/PUN/2024 wherein, notice u/s.148 dated 18.07.2022 was quashed by ITAT. Similar view has been taken by ITAT Pune in the case of Sagar Bharat Alhat Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2790/PUN/2025, order dated 18.06.2026, Vivek Prasad Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2573/PUN/2025, order dated 29.06.2026 and Mangala Dilip Shewale Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2504/PUN/2025, order dated 08.06.2026.
ITA No. 648/PUN/2026
Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi , Hon‟ble Bombay High Court (supra) and ITAT Pune, we hereby hold that the Notice u/s 148 dated 02.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 is bad in law and accordingly consequential Reassessment is bad in Law. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act is quashed.
In the result the Legal Ground raised by the Assessee is allowed. Since we have adjudicated on the Legal Ground, we do not intend to adjudicate on merits of the addition.
The Ld. AR has only argued Legal Ground.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th August, 2026
Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 17-08-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.08.17 10:26:09 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „B‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jai Ram Gupta vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Maa Baglamukhi Construction Thr Propriter Aryan Dhingra vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026