On 9 January 2026, a two-judge bench held that shares received in an amalgamation in substitution of stock-in-trade are taxable as business income under Section 28; Section 47(vii) is confined to capital assets.
On 7 October 2003, a two-judge bench of Justices Ruma Pal and B.N. Srikrishna reversed the Delhi High Court and upheld CBDT Circular No. 789 of 13 April 2000 — which had directed assessing officers to treat a Tax Residency Certificate issued by Mauritian authorities as sufficient evidence of residence and beneficial ownership for the purposes of the India–Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The bench held that treaty shopping is not per se illegal in the absence of an express limitation-of-benefits clause, that the CBDT acted within its Section 119 power, and that Chinnappa Reddy J.'s anti-avoidance observations in McDowell (1985) were obiter and did not displace the Westminster principle in Indian law. A digest of the bench, the architecture of the DTAA, the doctrinal contribution, and the post-judgment arc through the 2016 Protocol, GAAR, and Tiger Global.
On 15 September 2014, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court — R.M. Lodha C.J., J.S. Khehar J., J. Chelameswar J., A.K. Sikri J. and R.F. Nariman J. — unanimously held that the proviso to Section 113 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, imposing a surcharge on tax computed in block assessments and inserted by the Finance Act 2002 with effect from 1 June 2002, operates prospectively only and does not apply to block periods ending before that date; the bench overruled the contrary view in CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta (2008) that had treated the proviso as clarificatory. The judgment is the modern leading authority on the presumption against retrospective operation of tax statutes — particularly statutes that levy a new tax, increase a rate, or impose a surcharge. A digest of the bench, the statutory architecture, the doctrinal contribution on the substantive–clarificatory distinction, and the post-judgment arc through Sankaracharya University (2023) and the GST retrospective-amendment challenges now mounting in High Courts.
The May 2026 cycle in tax law has produced one of the most consequential indirect-tax rulings of the calendar year — the Supreme Court's affirmation of 28 per cent GST on online gaming on full face value in *DGGI v. Gameskraft Technologies* — alongside the first full compliance cycle of the Income-tax Act 2025, the GSTAT 30 June 2026 backlog deadline, the GST 2.0 dual-rate regime in its first full fiscal year, and the practitioner fallout from the *Tiger Global* GAAR ruling of 15 January 2026. Read together, the cycle discloses the doctrinal and administrative architecture within which tax practice now operates.
On 15 January 2026, a two-judge bench — Justice R. Mahadevan in the principal opinion, with Justice J.B. Pardiwala concurring — held that the General Anti-Avoidance Rule in Chapter X-A of the *Income-tax Act, 1961* applies to any arrangement yielding a tax benefit on or after 1 April 2017, even for pre-2017 investments structured to claim Mauritius treaty benefits. The Tax Residency Certificate, the Court held, remains a relevant factor but is no longer conclusive for GAAR purposes; the *Azadi Bachao Andolan* line on TRC-as-conclusive-evidence is substantially modified. A digest of the holding, the 2016 Protocol grandfathering architecture, and the practitioner fallout that has emerged through May-June 2026.
On 20 January 2012, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court — S.H. Kapadia C.J., K.S. Radhakrishnan J. and Swatanter Kumar J. — unanimously held that the transfer of a single share in a Cayman Islands holding company (CGP) between two non-residents did not give rise to capital gains taxable in India under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the share's value was rooted in the Hutch–Vodafone Indian telecom chain; the look-at test was adopted, and the Revenue's USD 2.2 billion demand was quashed. Parliament responded with the Finance Act 2012 retrospective amendment to Section 9(1)(i); Vodafone then commenced a treaty arbitration under the India–Netherlands BIT and prevailed; the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 2021 ultimately rolled back the retrospective amendment. A digest of the judgment, its statutory architecture, and the doctrinal arc that has followed.
On 1 April 2026, the Income-tax Act, 2025 replaced the 1961 Act. The numbering is new, the structure is tighter, and the conceptual architecture has shifted — most visibly in the disappearance of 'previous year' and 'assessment year' in favour of a single 'tax year'. A reading of what has actually changed, what is structural cosmetic, and what the bar needs to know for its first cycle of tax-year-2026-27 work.