IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 28.09.2029

By | September 29, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 28.09.2029

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 12ACommissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Bhojaram Leuva Patel Seva Samaj TrustThe Tribunal’s decision to remand the registration matter was upheld because the Commissioner (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application under Section 12AB on the ground that the trust’s objects benefited a particular community. The provisions of Section 13 can only be invoked at the assessment stage, not the registration stage.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 17Kalyanasundaram Ranjithkumar v. Income-tax OfficerA salaried employee‘s receipt of a full and final settlement (ex-gratia) from an employer upon unit closure did not qualify as compensation under Section 17(3) (perquisite), as the payment was voluntary with no obligation under the service rules.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 47Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central v. Atria Wind (Kadambur) (P.) Ltd.The Karnataka High Court ruled that the reassessment and addition of capital gains on the conversion of a partnership firm into a company could not be sustained because the assessee had complied with the conditions of Section 47(xiii), and the material found during the search was non-incriminating.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 68Income-tax Officer v. Kapil Arun AgrawalAn addition made for unexplained cash credit related to IndusInd Bank Ltd. shares was deleted as there was no allegation or evidence of price rigging or bogus LTCG for that specific scrip, and the assessment reopening was not linked to it.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 68Income-tax Officer v. Kapil Arun AgrawalAn addition for unexplained cash credit based only on assumptions of price rigging in the sale of Oasis Tradelink Ltd. shares was not justified and deleted, especially since the assessee had shown a short-term capital loss (no gains claimed).Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 68Income-tax Officer v. Kapil Arun AgrawalAn assessment reopening notice was unjustified where the Assessing Officer failed to mention in the reasons recorded the nature of the transaction or the manner in which the assessee allegedly obtained an accommodation entry from a bogus company.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 69Ranjan Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxAn assessment order under Section 143(3) making an addition for unexplained investment was unsustainable because, despite the existence of a satisfaction note and adverse material under Section 153C, no proceedings under Section 153C were initiated, constituting a fundamental lapse in due process.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 69Lakhvir Kaur v. DCIT/ACITAn addition for unexplained investment on the sale of a poultry farm was deleted as it was based solely on a photocopy of an agreement to sell allegedly from a WhatsApp chat, without recording statements of buyer/seller or independent verification.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 69Lakhvir Kaur v. DCIT/ACITAdditions for jewellery were held to be unjustified as the assessee had been regularly filing returns, disclosing reasonable household drawings, thereby establishing the financial capacity to acquire the jewellery, and the found bills were not substantial.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 69BLakshmi R. Nair v. Principal Commissioner of Income-taxThe Kerala High Court held that the petitioner could not claim the release of seized gold ornaments as the assessment proceedings in respect of the ornaments had been concluded in the name of her husband and had attained finality.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 69CLakhvir Kaur v. DCIT/ACITAdditions for alleged personal use of a vehicle and unexplained foreign travelling expenditure were not justified as they were made merely on an estimation basis without the Revenue bringing any cogent evidence to the contrary.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 69CIncome-tax Officer v. Kapil Arun AgrawalA separate addition for alleged commission on accommodation entries was deleted as it was made purely on assumptions and without any corroborative evidence of price rigging or bogus gains in the relevant share transactions.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 80GGCVitthaldas Nathubhai Shah v. Principal Commissioner of Income-taxThe PCIT’s invocation of Section 263 was unsustainable where the original assessment had accepted the deduction for donation to a political party under Section 80GGC, and the revision was based solely on a later search on the political party with no direct incriminating material against the assessee.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 119Vesava Koli Samaj Shikshan Sanstha v. Commissioner of Income (Exemption)A delay of 181 days in filing Form 10B (audit report) for a charitable trust was condoned under Section 119, as the delay was due to the inadvertence of the auditor’s accountant and was neither deliberate nor mala fide, and the audit report was obtained in time.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 145Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd.An addition for unaccounted sales based on an estimated production yield in the assessee’s SMS Division was deleted because the rejection of the books of account was invalid due to the complete absence of any adverse material against the assessee.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 270AMan Truck & Bus India (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, Income-tax DepartmentThe penalty order was set aside and remanded for a fresh decision because the Assessing Officer had failed to consider that the assessee had entered into an APA with the CBDT, filed a modified return under Section 92CD(1) as per the APA, and paid the tax due.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 26.09.2025