The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) officially opened the ITR filing season for FY 2025-26 (AY 2026-27) on May 15, 2026.

The utilities are available for download on the income tax e-filing portal.

The last date to file for non-audit cases is July 31, 2026.

Who can use which form:

ITR-1 (Sahaj) is for resident individuals with total income up to Rs 50 lakh from:

• Salary or pension
• Up to two house properties
• Other sources like interest income
• Agricultural income up to Rs 5,000
• Long-term capital gains under Section 112A up to Rs 1.25 lakh

ITR-4 (Sugam) is for resident individuals, HUFs, and firms (excluding LLPs) with total income up to Rs 50 lakh who are under the presumptive taxation scheme (Sections 44AD, 44ADA, or 44AE). It also covers LTCG under Section 112A up to Rs 1.25 lakh.

What is new this year:

CBDT has added new disclosure requirements for AY 2026-27. Taxpayers will now need to report:

• Long-term capital gains in more detail
• Buyback losses
• Specific trading transactions

These are additional fields compared to last year, so review your form carefully before submitting.

How to file using the Excel utility:

• Download the Excel utility from the income tax e-filing portal
• Fill in your details offline at your own pace
• Generate the JSON file once complete
• Upload the JSON file to the portal and verify

Key takeaway:

If your income falls within the eligibility limits for ITR-1 or ITR-4, start early. The new disclosure requirements around capital gains and trading transactions mean there is more to fill this year compared to before.

Due Date comes faster than it seems.

Most workplaces today actively discuss:

• performance
• engagement
• retention
• culture

But one thing employees quietly struggle with every year is:
tax confusion and financial stress.

Especially around:

• ITR filing
• regime selection
• deductions
• notices
• salary structuring
• investment decisions

Interesting to see more HR and Finance leaders now treating financial wellness as part of employee experience itself instead of just “personal finance.”

We’re seeing some of these conversations happen in Nashik now too through leadership-level discussions and CXO roundtables around employee financial and taxation wellness.

Feels like an important shift for workplaces honestly.

More Details: https://luma.com/sd8f93vq

This is a practical case for anyone who owns a property that looks like a house on paper but is actually an unusable plot of land.

Background

Vijay Hathising Shah from Ahmedabad sold two non-agricultural lands at Ambli village in FY 2015-16. The total long-term capital gain from the sale was ₹15.85 crore.

To save tax on these gains, he claimed a deduction of ₹3.96 crore under Section 54F by investing in a new residential house.

Section 54F has one key condition: at the time of sale, the taxpayer must not own more than one residential house other than the new one being purchased.

The dispute arose because Vijay owned two properties at the time:

• A residential bungalow with a book value of ₹1.02 crore
• Another property at Ambli Gam with a book value of ₹15.73 lakh

The second property became the entire battleground of this case.

What the Tax Department said

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax revised the original assessment under Section 263, holding that Vijay owned two residential houses at the time of the sale. This disqualified him from claiming Section 54F.

The Assessing Officer gave effect to this revision and denied the deduction of ₹3.96 crore, pushing the taxable long-term capital gain to ₹19.82 crore.

The department's reasoning was straightforward:

• The Ambli Gam property was included in the assessee's balance sheet at ₹15.73 lakh
• If the property had no value or was uninhabitable, why was it recorded as an asset?
• Photographs submitted later could not confirm the condition of the property at the time of original purchase in 2013
• A property valued at ₹15.73 lakh cannot simultaneously be treated as worthless land

What the taxpayer argued

Vijay's position was that the Ambli Gam property was not a residential house at all. It was a small open plot of land measuring just 49.72 square metres with no habitable structure on it.

The evidence placed before the authorities included:

• The original purchase deed dated May 29, 2014, which described the property as land of inhabitation with mud and soil roof constructions, not a proper residential structure
• Photographs attached to the sale deed showing a vacant plot with only neighboring boundary walls and no roof of its own
• The property was eventually sold in March 2020 for ₹8.51 lakh, at a loss from the purchase price of ₹15 lakh, confirming it had no residential value
• The buyer confirmed through a notarized affidavit that no construction existed on the land as of the sale date
• The Assessing Officer himself had never assessed any income from house property on this plot under Section 22, which he would have done had it been treated as a residential unit

What the court decided

ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue's appeal on April 22, 2026.

The Tribunal examined the registered sale deeds for both the purchase and the eventual sale of the Ambli Gam property. Both documents consistently described it as open land of inhabitation with no residential structure.

The buyer's affidavit further confirmed the same position. The Tribunal held that this property simply could not be classified as a residential house. Since Vijay effectively owned only one residential house at the time of the original sale, the condition under Section 54F was satisfied and the deduction of ₹3.96 crore was upheld.

The case reference is ITA No. 1546/Ahd/2025, Assessment Year 2015-16.

Key takeaway

Owning a plot of land does not automatically mean you own a residential house for the purposes of Section 54F. What matters is whether the property is actually habitable and functions as a residence.

Three things this case highlights:

• A property recorded in your balance sheet at a certain value does not automatically make it a residential house under tax law
• The condition of the property at the relevant time matters, and documentary evidence like sale deeds, photographs, and affidavits can be decisive
• If the tax department has never taxed rental or notional income from a property under Section 22, that itself supports the argument that it was never treated as a residential unit

If you are planning to claim Section 54F and have any secondary property in your name, assess whether it genuinely qualifies as a residential house. The classification can change the outcome entirely.

Order Copy: https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1776857890-H29GsT-1-TO.pdf

This is one of those cases that should not have reached a tribunal at all. But it did, and the outcome matters for anyone who has ever had a return filed incorrectly on their behalf.

Background

Naveen Nath is a Jawan serving in the Indian Armed Forces. Like many salaried individuals who are not familiar with tax filing, he relied on a tax consultant to file his return for AY 2018-19.

His actual salary, as per Form 16 issued by PAO Artillery Nashik, was ₹4,67,790.

The consultant made a single keystroke error and entered the salary as ₹46,77,900, an extra zero that multiplied the income by ten.

The CPC Bangalore processed the return as filed and raised a tax demand of ₹14,94,820 on an assessed income of ₹45,27,900.

For context, as the appellant's representative pointed out before the Tribunal, even the highest-ranked army officers did not draw a salary anywhere close to ₹46 lakh during that financial year.

What the Tax Department said

The Assessing Officer processed the return based on the figures submitted. The demand was generated automatically by CPC Bangalore on the basis of the erroneous return.

When Naveen appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appeal was dismissed, not on merits, but on a technicality involving an incorrect date on a form. The actual error in the return was never examined at that stage.

What the taxpayer argued

Before the ITAT Pune Bench, Naveen's representative placed three pieces of evidence on record:

• Form 16 issued by PAO Artillery Nashik clearly showed a salary of ₹4,67,790
• Form 26AS, verified by the Income Tax Department itself, confirmed the same figure
• The salary reported in the return was factually impossible for someone at his rank and pay grade

The argument was simple. There was no concealment, no manipulation, and no intent to misreport. A consultant made a typographical error and it snowballed into a demand nearly three times the actual salary.

Notably, the Departmental Representative for the Revenue also conceded before the Tribunal that the discrepancy was a typing mistake.

What the court decided

ITAT Pune allowed the appeal on February 13, 2026.

The Tribunal found that the assessed income was entirely the result of a typographical error. Given that both Form 16 and Form 26AS confirmed the correct salary, and even the revenue did not dispute the mistake, there was no basis to sustain the demand.

The ITAT set aside the earlier orders and directed the Assessing Officer to correct the gross total income to ₹4,67,790.

Key takeaway

A single digit error can create a tax demand that is completely disconnected from reality. A few things this case highlights:

• Always cross-check your filed return against your Form 16 and Form 26AS before the filing deadline
• If a demand is raised that looks disproportionate to your actual income, do not ignore it assuming it will resolve on its own
• A typographical error by a consultant is still your legal responsibility as the taxpayer
• Form 26AS and Form 16 together are strong evidence in your favor if the error is clearly documented

The harder lesson here is that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a procedural technicality rather than looking at the actual facts. It took a tribunal to correct what should have been a straightforward fix.

Order Copy: https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1771326458-4NN4Eg-1-TO.pdf

This case is directly relevant for anyone who has booked an under-construction flat and is planning to claim capital gains exemption after selling an old property.

Background

Charly Rocky Chitteth booked a flat at Lodha Luxeria, Thane while it was still under construction. The purchase agreement was registered on November 28, 2014.

He then sold his old flat at Om Krishna Darshan CHS on January 13, 2016 for ₹49.80 lakh, generating a long-term capital gain of ₹34.55 lakh.

His plan was straightforward: use the new flat investment to claim full exemption under Section 54 and pay zero tax on the capital gain.

The payments to the builder were made in instalments between March 2015 and February 2016, totaling ₹38.87 lakh. Physical possession of the new flat was handed over on April 14, 2017.

What the Tax Department said

The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire Section 54 exemption.

The objection was based on one date: the agreement for the new flat was registered on November 28, 2014, which was more than one year before the sale of the old flat on January 13, 2016.

Section 54 allows exemption only if the new property is purchased within one year before or two years after the date of sale of the original asset. In the AO's view, ownership of the new flat began on the date of registration of the agreement. Since that date fell outside the permitted window, the exemption was denied in full.

CIT(A) reviewed the matter and agreed with the AO. The disallowance was upheld.

What the taxpayer argued

Charly's case before ITAT rested on a simple but important distinction.

The flat was under construction in 2014. The registration of the agreement was just procedural paperwork. It did not mean he had a finished, usable property. No possession had been transferred, and no keys had been handed over.

His actual payments flowed between March 2015 and February 2016, well within the one-year window before the sale. Possession was received on April 14, 2017, which falls within two years after the sale date of January 2016.

His position was that for an under-construction property, what truly matters is when payments were made and when possession was actually received, not when the agreement was signed and registered.

What the court decided

ITAT Mumbai ruled entirely in Charly's favor on April 10, 2026.

The Tribunal held that for under-construction properties, the date of possession is the relevant date of acquisition for the purpose of Section 54, not the date of registration of the purchase agreement.

Two earlier coordinate bench rulings were cited in support: Bastimal K. Jain vs ITO and Sunil Amrit Lal Shah vs ITO, both from ITAT Mumbai. Both cases had established the same principle in nearly identical situations.

Since possession was received on April 14, 2017, within two years of the January 2016 sale, the Section 54 conditions were fully met.

The exemption of ₹34.55 lakh was restored in full. The addition was deleted. All grounds of appeal were allowed.

Case reference: ITA No. 6529/MUM/2025, Assessment Year 2016-17.

Key takeaway

If you have bought or are planning to buy an under-construction flat to save capital gains tax, the date on the agreement is not the final word on whether you qualify for Section 54.

If you are in a similar situation, keep the following documents ready:

• Allotment letter or registered purchase agreement
• Bank proofs for every instalment paid to the builder
• Possession letter issued by the builder
• Occupancy certificate and society formation documents

These documents together establish the real timeline of your purchase and can be the difference between an exemption being allowed or denied.

And honestly, it’s overdue.

Because behind a lot of employee stress today, there’s usually:

• tax confusion
• poor financial planning
• filing anxiety
• investment mistakes
• lack of financial clarity

Most employees never openly discuss it.

But leaders are starting to recognize its long-term impact on employee confidence and overall experience.

That’s why conversations like the 5th CXOs Leadership Conclave, Nashik feel worth paying attention to.

Leaders like:

• Dr. Dinesh Singh (AVP HR, Polycab India)
• CA Shakti Shukla (Ex-CFO, Seva Trucking)
• Anand Dhruv (Head HR, NIDO Group)

coming together to discuss:
“Strengthening Employee Experience Through Financial & Taxation Wellness”

📍 Nashik
📅 23rd May, Saturday
⏰ 9:30 AM – 1:00 PM

Registration: https://luma.com/sd8f93vq

And honestly, it’s overdue.

Because behind a lot of employee stress today, there’s usually:

• tax confusion
• poor financial planning
• filing anxiety
• investment mistakes
• lack of financial clarity

Most employees never openly discuss it.

But leaders are starting to recognize its long-term impact on employee confidence and overall experience.

That’s why conversations like the 5th CXOs Leadership Conclave, Nashik feel worth paying attention to.

Leaders like:

• Dr. Dinesh Singh (AVP HR, Polycab India)
• CA Shakti Shukla (Ex-CFO, Seva Trucking)
• Anand Dhruv (Head HR, NIDO Group)

coming together to discuss:
“Strengthening Employee Experience Through Financial & Taxation Wellness”

📍 Nashik
📅 23rd May, Saturday
⏰ 9:30 AM – 1:00 PM

Registration: https://luma.com/sd8f93vq

Feels like employee wellbeing conversations are finally becoming more practical and real.