TaxHeal - GST and Income Tax Complete Guide Portal

Important Income Tax Case Law 08.10.2025

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
4	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aarti Industries Ltd.	Status Holder Incentive Scrips (SHIS) subsidy and fertilizer subsidy were capital receipts and not chargeable to tax.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
12AA	Advantage India v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax	Cancellation of a society’s registration was valid due to fund laundering and non-charitable activities, but the cancellation could only be effective from the year such activities began.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
12AB	ZLS Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Exemption	A trust’s registration application was remanded for a fresh decision because a final opportunity to be heard was not provided, even though its objects appeared to be for a specific religious community.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
14A	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aarti Industries Ltd.	Section 14A disallowance does not apply when computing book profit under Section 115JB.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
14A	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aarti Industries Ltd.	For Rule 8D(2)(iii) disallowance, only investments that yielded exempt income during the year should be considered in the average value.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
32	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aarti Industries Ltd.	If an asset is used for less than 180 days, the balance of additional depreciation can be claimed in the subsequent year.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
35	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aarti Industries Ltd.	Weighted deduction for R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB) was allowed based on the principle of consistency, as it was allowed in previous years despite procedural defects.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
36(1)(vii)	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ispat Infrastructure India Ltd.	The issue of bad debt disallowance was remanded because the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition without verifying if the conditions of Section 36(2) were met.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
37(1)	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahindra Homes (P.) Ltd.	For a real estate developer, pre-construction expenses must be capitalized as Work-in-Progress (WIP), while general administrative and selling expenses can be allowed as revenue expenditure.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
37(1)	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ispat Infrastructure India Ltd.	Deletion of an addition for operator expenses was unjustified as the assessee failed to provide any supporting documentary evidence.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
37(1)	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ispat Infrastructure India Ltd.	Disallowance of motor car and telephone expenses was remanded for fresh consideration as the assessee failed to provide supporting details at any stage.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
43A	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aarti Industries Ltd.	Depreciation on capitalized foreign exchange loss was allowed, following the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in earlier years.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
54F	Sneh Gupta v. ACIT	Exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied just because the construction of a new house was completed beyond the statutory period due to delays in obtaining permissions.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
68	Dairy India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT	An addition under Section 68 was not justified as the cash deposited during the demonetization period was almost equal to the cash sales made during that period.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
80-IA	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aarti Industries Ltd.	The Assessing Officer cannot selectively accept the TPO’s order for international transactions while ignoring it for Specified Domestic Transactions (SDTs).	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
92C	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahindra Homes (P.) Ltd.	Benchmarking of Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) was remanded as both the assessee’s and TPO’s methods failed to make appropriate adjustments for comparability.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
127	Advantage India v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax	When a case is transferred under Section 127, the new authority gains jurisdiction over all statutory functions, including the power to cancel registration under Section 12AA.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
132	Raj Krishan Gupta v. Principal Director of Income-tax (Investigation) -1	A search was held to be lawful and seized valuables were not released because the authorities had recorded valid ‘reasons to believe’ and followed all procedural requirements.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
143	Sneh Gupta v. ACIT	In a limited scrutiny case, the Assessing Officer cannot expand the scope to verify other claims without obtaining prior permission to convert it into a complete scrutiny.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
151	Amaan Naeem Akhtar Ansari v. Income-tax Officer	An order passed under Section 148A(d) was held to be a nullity because the required approval was taken from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, as mandated by law for cases beyond three years.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961
226	Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax v. State	Money seized during a search, which was allegedly defrauded from investors, cannot be appropriated by the Income-tax Department for tax liability until the trial under the PMLA is concluded.	Click Here	The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 07.10.2025