IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 05.10.2025

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 5	DCIT v. Jayapriya Company	Addition for notional short-accrued interest deleted as the Assessing Officer’s assumption of a flat 24% rate across all loans was made without any supporting evidence.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 35	DCIT v. Endurance Technologies Ltd.	Assessment order passed on the name of a non-existing entity was declared null and void.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 35	DCIT v. Endurance Technologies Ltd.	Disallowance of scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) deleted because the claim was made as per books and supporting invoices, despite a minor mismatch with a final bill from a contractor. No excess deduction was actually claimed.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 35	DCIT v. Endurance Technologies Ltd.	Assessee’s claim for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was allowed, as the R&D unit had DSIR approval for part of the period, and an application for the remaining period was not rejected by DSIR.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(iii)	DCIT v. Jayapriya Company	No interest disallowance warranted under section 36(1)(iii) even if loans to related parties were advanced at a lower/varied interest rate, since the borrowings were deployed in the course of the money lending business.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(vii)	DCIT v. Jayapriya Company	Claim for bad debts allowed as the written-off outstanding interest income was out of interest offered to tax in earlier years, fulfilling the conditions of section 36(2) read with section 36(1)(vii).	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 68	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kohinoor Foods Ltd.	Addition sustained only to the extent of profit embedded in unsubstantiated bogus purchases, as the assessee had made payments through banking channels, thus explaining the source of funds.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 68	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kohinoor Foods Ltd.	Reopening of assessment was justified where the Assessing Officer had specific information (STR report and bank statements) indicating the assessee had taken an accommodation entry via bogus purchases.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 69	Mehul Ravjibhai Surani v. Assessment Unit Income-tax Department	Reassessment order making an addition for alleged unexplained investment in shares quashed and set aside because the Assessing Officer did not consider the assessee’s reply to the show-cause notice-cum-draft assessment order.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 69A	DCIT v. Jayapriya Company	Addition for suppressed income under section 69A deleted by Commissioner (Appeals) to prevent double taxation, as the assessee had already disclosed and offered the same income to tax in its financial statement and return.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 80G	DCIT v. Endurance Technologies Ltd.	Deduction claimed under section 80G for expenditure incurred on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) was allowed, as there is no specific restriction for claiming section 80G deduction out of CSR expenditure.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 80-IC	DCIT v. Endurance Technologies Ltd.	Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in allowing a deduction claim under section 80-IC at the appellate stage, even though the assessee failed to make the claim in the original or revised return. Appellate authority can entertain a new claim.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 145	J N Tekrawala Construstion Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer	Assessing Officer was not justified in estimating income at 8% when the assessee, a civil construction business, consistently followed the well-recognized project completion method of accounting for contract receipts.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 148A	Mallesh Goud Donkeni v. Income-tax Officer	Proceedings under section 148A read with section 148 (income escaping assessment) ought to be issued and proceeded in a faceless manner as per the Finance Act, 2021 amendments.	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 194C	International Green Scapes Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	EDC payments by the assessee to HUDA for civil development works were contractual charges and would fall under section 194C (TDS on contractors/sub-contractors), not section 194I (TDS on rent).	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961
Section 194C	International Green Scapes Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Commissioner (TDS) was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 to apply section 194C when the appeal against the original order (applying section 194I) was already pending before the Commissioner (Appeals).	Click Here	Income-Tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT Income Tax Case Law 03.10.2025