This compilation indexes twelve Indian court and tribunal orders — decided between July and August 2026 — in which Section 28 of one or more statutes was cited or engaged. The cases span the Supreme Court of India, multiple High Courts (Delhi, Karnataka, Madras, Punjab-Haryana, and Chhattisgarh), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi. Researchers should note that "Section 28" appears across multiple Indian statutes; the rulings below involve Section 28 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the Customs Act 1962, the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Trade Marks Act 1999, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, and criminal/procedural legislation. Each ruling is identified precisely by its source data, and the statutory context is noted per case.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference for legal and tax professionals. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation of any course of action. Always verify against the full judgment text and check for any subsequent stay, reversal, or CBDT/CBIC circular before relying on any ruling.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the charging provision for income from "profits and gains of business or profession." It specifies the heads of receipts that are taxable under this head, including profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year, compensation for modification or cessation of a business agency, income from speculative transactions, export incentives, and deemed profits under various deeming provisions. Because the section number "28" appears in multiple Indian statutes, researchers using this compilation must confirm the parent statute for each ruling; the income-tax regime cases in this index are Cases 6 (Section 41 of the Income Tax Act, with Section 28 cited in source data) and Case 11 (IT(TP)A, Assessment Year 2022-23, with Section 234A also cited).

The 12 rulings

1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brij Pal Singh

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 20 August 2026
Sections engaged: 27, 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025, 2026 INSC 901) was decided by the Supreme Court of India. Per the source preview, the judgment discusses police investigation powers in relation to an Act containing Section 28, reasoning that Section 28 of the relevant Act does not control or circumscribe the independent statutory power of the police to investigate an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence in accordance with Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C., and that any statutory prohibition against taking cognizance operates only at the stage when a court intends to take cognizance under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C., not at the initial stage of FIR registration or police investigation.

2. Baker Hughes Oilfield Services India vs Customs Authority For Advance Rulings

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 19 August 2026
Sections engaged: 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court under CUSAA 43/2023 (and connected matters CUSAA 62/2023, CUSAA 63/2023, and CUSAA 66/2023) challenging rulings of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings. The source preview identifies multiple appellants including Baker Hughes Oilfield Services India Pvt Ltd, Baker Hughes Singapore Pte, BJ Services Company Middle East Ltd, and M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc, all represented before the court; the substantive outcome and detailed reasoning are not reproduced in the available source preview.

3. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited vs M/S Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 17 August 2026
Sections engaged: 57, 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This petition was filed before the Delhi High Court under C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 122/2025 seeking cancellation of trademark registration No. 5208898 dated 14.11.2021 for the trademark DAPLOGIN registered in Class 05, under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The source preview establishes that the petitioner, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, is described as one of India's largest pharmaceutical companies; the detailed substantive findings and final disposal are not reproduced in the available source preview.

4. Smt Lalitha S vs The Deputy Commissioner

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 13 August 2026
Sections engaged: 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (WP No. 24040 of 2026, LA-RES) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the respondents include the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District; the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority for National Highway-275; and the National Highway Authority of India; the case appears to involve a land acquisition or related compensation matter. The substantive relief sought and the court's final order are not reproduced in the available source preview.

5. Rinkee Ranjita (Prabhakar) vs Dr. P. C. Prabhakar

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 7 August 2026
Sections engaged: 13, 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This first appeal (FA(MAT) No. 175 of 2025) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Per the source preview, the appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 25.02.2025 passed by the Learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 417A/2016, in which the respondent/husband had sought dissolution of marriage. The final direction of the appeal is not reproduced in the available source preview.

6. Cl Educate Limited,New Delhi vs ACIT, Circle 6(1), Now Circle 4(2), New

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 5 August 2026
Sections engaged: 41
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before ITAT Delhi Bench "B" as ITA No. 120/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) and ITA No. 121/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) by C L. Educate Limited (PAN: AAACC3885C). Per the source preview, the matter involves amounts written off aggregating Rs. 11,61,86,712, comprising receivables against infrastructure fees, license and soft skill fees, and net interest receivable across FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12; the hearing took place on 07.05.2026 and the order was pronounced on 05.08.2026. The final direction of the tribunal is not reproduced in the available source preview.

7. M/S. Prakruthi Traders vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Imports)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 28 July 2026
Sections engaged: 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (WP No. 21374 of 2026 and WMP No. 23143 of 2026) was filed before the Madras High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to assess and clear a consignment of roasted areca nut — split, covered under Bill of Entry No. 7013396 dated 21.1.2026, classifiable under CTH 20081991, on the strength of an NOC (No. FICS-CHN-CUS-GEN-2026-27-006 dated 21.5.2026) issued by the Authorized Officer of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. The final order of the court is not reproduced in the available source preview.

8. Pawan Kumar ,Karnal Haryana vs Income Tax Officer, Karnal Haryana

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 27 July 2026
Sections engaged: 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This order covers MA No. 308/Del/2026 arising out of ITA No. 3891/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) filed by Pawan Kumar (PAN: BOQPK1912N) before ITAT Delhi Bench 'F'. Per the source preview, the miscellaneous application was filed because the underlying appeal had been heard ex-parte and dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2025 on account of non-appearance; the assessee's representative submitted that an adjournment request had been sent by email dated 11.02.2025 citing ill health, which was not brought to the notice of the Bench at the time of hearing. The final outcome of the miscellaneous application is not reproduced in the available source preview.

9. Union Of India vs Pardeep Singh Pathania And Others

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 23 July 2026
Sections engaged: 11, 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This intra-court appeal (LPA-1746-2026, O&M) was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the Union of India, challenging a judgment dated 06.05.2026 by a learned Single Judge that allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent-landowner and granted enhanced compensation. Per the source preview, the land was acquired for defence purposes via notifications dated 22.02.1991 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with an award passed under Section 11 on 15.03.1993; the preview further notes that Section 28-A of the 1894 Act provides an opportunity for redetermination of compensation to parties covered by the same notification once any of them obtains higher compensation from a reference court. The final direction of the division bench is not reproduced in the available source preview.

10. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd vs M/S Rukma Decor And Construction Co

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 16 July 2026
Sections engaged: 34, 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (FAO (COMM) 190/2024) was filed before the Delhi High Court by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) challenging a judgment dated 06.08.2024 of the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-06), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in ARB. A. (Comm.) No. 20/2019. Per the source preview, that lower court had dismissed MTNL's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking to set aside an arbitral award dated 27.11.2018, which had partly allowed the respondent's claims relating to balance and left-out construction work pertaining to 240 Type-III quarters at GH-17, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi; the source preview notes the principal controversy in the appeal concerns the validity and enforceability of a contract clause and the principle of minimal interference in arbitral awards. The final order of the High Court is not reproduced in the available source preview.

11. Kronos Solutions India Private vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 28, 234A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before ITAT Delhi Bench "H" as IT(TP)A No. 4/Del/2026 along with Stay Application No. 46/Del/2026, for Assessment Year 2022-23, by Kronos Solutions India Private Limited (PAN: AACCD4922B). Per the source preview, the matter involves transfer pricing, with the source data indicating a benchmarking analysis covering back-office support services (ITES) with a median of 16.17% and a figure of 18.08% referenced, and reimbursement of expenses received valued at Rs. 6,59,06,416 assessed under Rule 10AB; the hearing was on 26.05.2026 and the order was pronounced on 15.07.2026. The final direction of the tribunal on the appeal and stay application is not reproduced in the available source preview.

12. Union Of India vs Sh. S.S. Aggarwal & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 14 July 2026
Sections engaged: 18, 28
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These connected appeals (LA.APP. 497/2023, LA.APP. 496/2023, and LA.APP. 546/2023) were filed before the Delhi High Court involving the Union of India and landowners including Sh. S.S. Aggarwal, Om Prakash, and Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, with DDA also appearing through standing counsel. The matter, per the source preview, relates to land acquisition appeals; the sections engaged (18 and 28) are consistent with a Land Acquisition Act compensation or reference context. The substantive findings and final directions of the court are not reproduced in the available source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 28 as a cross-statute citation. Across all 12 cases in this index, "Section 28" refers to different provisions in different statutes — including the Income Tax Act 1961, the Customs Act 1962, the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Trade Marks Act 1999, and criminal procedure legislation. Researchers must confirm the parent statute before drawing any substantive inference from a ruling.
Land acquisition compensation disputes form a recurring cluster. Cases 4, 9, and 12 all arise from land acquisition proceedings — involving the Karnataka High Court (National Highway-275 acquisition), the Punjab-Haryana High Court (defence land acquisition under the 1894 Act), and the Delhi High Court (connected land acquisition appeals) respectively. Section 28 or 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 or related provisions appears to be the linking thread in this sub-group.
Income-tax regime cases are a minority in this set. Of the 12 cases, only Cases 6 (CL Educate Limited, ITAT Delhi, involving amounts written off) and 11 (Kronos Solutions India Private Limited, ITAT Delhi, involving transfer pricing for AY 2022-23) are squarely within the income-tax regime. Researchers using the slug or topic tag "income-tax / section 28" should note that the bulk of these rulings arise under other statutory regimes.
Procedural grounds — ex-parte dismissal and miscellaneous applications — appear in at least one ITAT matter. Case 8 (Pawan Kumar vs ITO, ITAT Delhi) involves a miscellaneous application filed to recall an ex-parte dismissal order, with the assessee citing an adjournment request submitted by email citing ill health that was not brought to the Bench's notice. This is a recurring procedural pattern at ITAT and is worth tracking by practitioners monitoring ITAT procedural orders.
Outcome data is uniformly unavailable in the source previews. All 12 cases carry the outcome direction "Outcome not specified in source," indicating that the structured corpus has not yet captured the dispositive direction for these matters. Researchers should retrieve the full judgment text from indiankanoon.org or official court portals to ascertain the final order in each case.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a research index, not a digest of settled law. Each entry provides the court, date, sections cited, and a brief procedural note drawn strictly from the available source preview. Because outcome data is not available in the structured source for any of these 12 rulings, researchers must retrieve and read the full judgment text before drawing any conclusion about what the court held, whether the appeal was allowed or dismissed, and what directions, if any, were issued. The full text is available on indiankanoon.org and on official High Court or tribunal portals (ITAT orders are typically accessible via the ITAT e-filing portal or the respective Bench's listing).

Before relying on any ruling in a professional context — whether in a legal opinion, an assessment proceeding response, an appeal, or an advance ruling application — researchers should check: (a) whether the order has been stayed by a higher court; (b) whether a subsequent appeal, SLP, or review petition has been filed or decided; (c) whether any CBDT circular, CBIC instruction, or Finance Act amendment has affected the statutory provision in question after the date of the order; and (d) whether the "Section 28" engaged in the cited ruling corresponds to the same statute and sub-section relevant to the matter being researched.

Given that this index spans multiple statutory regimes under the common section-number label "28," in-house tax teams and law firm researchers are advised to apply an additional filter — confirming the parent statute — before adding any of these cases to a research brief. Income-tax practitioners should focus primarily on Cases 6 and 11 for direct income-tax regime relevance, while land acquisition specialists, customs practitioners, family law researchers, and arbitration practitioners will find the other cases more directly relevant to their respective practice areas.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 28 in Indian Courts: 12 Rulings Across Regimes (2026)