Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 10(26) is DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO (358 ITR 471), cited in 66 of the 85 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(26)

DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
358 ITR 471 · 2013 · High Court
66
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated solely for the purpose of making a protective addition. Such proceedings are not valid in the eyes of law.

(CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd.
104 ITR 655 · 1976 · High Court
32
citing judgments

The 'actual cost' of an asset under Section 43(1) is reduced by any portion of the cost met by another person or authority, even if that portion represents a waived liability.

CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels (P.) Ltd.
111 Taxmann.com 62 · 2019 · High Court
21
citing judgments
Dayabai v. CIT
154 ITR 248 · 1985 · High Court
20
citing judgments
PCIT v. Kunvarji Commodities Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
432 ITR 180 · High Court
19
citing judgments
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
137 Taxmann.com 315 · 2022 · High Court
18
citing judgments
(CIT v. Khalid Mehdi
165 ITR 685 · 1987 · High Court
18
citing judgments
North Eastern Constructions v. ITO
117 Taxmann.com 321 · 2020 · ITAT
10
citing judgments
Rakesh Kumar Jha v. ITO
150 Taxmann.com 298 · 2023 · Reported
8
citing judgments
Jaspal Singh Sehgal v. ITO, 47 ITR (T) 193 (Mum)
171 Taxmann.com 308 · 2025 · Reported
6
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 10(26)

LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 191/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 10(26)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 190/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 10(26)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR , SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 313/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

AKHETO YEPTHOMI,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, ITA No. 246/GTY/2025 is dismissed

ITA 246/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 2.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 246/Gty/2025:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 10(26)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 69A

AKHETO YEPTHOMI,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, ITA No. 246/GTY/2025 is dismissed

ITA 245/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 2.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 246/Gty/2025:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 10(26)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 69A

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 275/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 242/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 149Section 250Section 69A

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 149Section 250Section 69A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs. IMKUMMONGLA PONGEN, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 156/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

DILING TATAK,PAPUM PARE vs. ITO, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 277/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Pandey
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 250

TSERING PHUNCHOK,LEH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 205/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Adv
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 50/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 49/GTY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

MANTO TINGKHAHAM,NAMSANGMUKH vs. OFFICE OF THE ITO, DIGBOI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vide DIN & Order No :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074803037(1).

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 69A

MANDAKINI DKHAR,LUMSHNONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/GTY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), where also she could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) mainly relied on the findings of the Ld. AO. It is also seen from para 18 at page 11 of the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) was considerably persuaded by the fact that the notice issued by the Ld. AO for eliciting response from the assessee, were not adequately responded to. It is also seen from the impugned order that attempts to verify the nature and extent of business from the VAT returns pertaining to the state of Megha

Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. BIRI KAKUM, ESS SECTOR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 170/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: The Ld. Ao. The Ld. Ao Was Not Satisfied With The Response Given By The Assessee & Made The Impugned Addition With The Following Finding:

Section 10(26)Section 145(3)Section 250

Showing 1–20 of 85 · Page 1 of 5