IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 30.10.25

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
$\S 2(15)$	Endocrine and Breast Surgery Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Exemptions	Assessee-society’s activities (seminars/meetings, receiving donations from pharma companies and fees from doctors) were found to have a direct nexus with promotions for pharma companies and a hospital rather than benefiting the general public. Thus, its activities were not for ‘charitable purposes’.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 12\text{A}$	PSR Sustainability Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption)	Where registration application under $\S 12\text{A}(1)(\text{ac})(\text{iii})$ was rejected for non-compliance, the Commissioner (Exemption) was directed to give the assessee an opportunity to file a correct application (as wrong section code was used) and then decide on merits.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 17$	Suhas Jagannath Kanase v. Income-tax officer, National e Assessment Centre, Delhi.	Following a previous Tribunal decision, the matter regarding the taxability of ex-gratia payment received by the assessee upon resignation was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 28$	Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT	Where assessee recognized assets in their books, they became business assets, and thus, the corresponding liability arising from the business was to be brought to tax under $\S 28(\text{iv})$	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 32$	Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT	Following a decision for the assessee’s group company, depreciation under $\S 32$ was allowed on capitalized 3G spectrum fees as an intangible asset, contrary to the Assessing Officer’s view of amortization under $\S 35\text{ABB}$	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 35\text{ABB}$	Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT	License fees paid by a telecom operator were held to be capital in nature and required to be amortized in accordance with $\S 35\text{ABB}$	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 37$	Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT	Lease payments (operating or finance lease) are considered revenue expenditure and allowable.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 37$	Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT	Penalty paid to the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) for non-compliance with terms of the license agreement was allowable under $\S 37(1)$ .	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 37$	Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT	Asset Restoration Cost (ARC) for restoring leased sites, being a contractual liability, was held to be a legitimate liability, either capitalizable for depreciation or deductible under	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 37(1)$	Balajee Infratech & Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Royalty paid to a Power of Attorney holder authorized by the landowner for excavation of stones/boulders (paid through banking channels with TDS compliance) was allowable as a deduction; reopening based merely on a change of opinion was invalid.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 40$	Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT	Payment of roaming charges by a telecom operator to another mobile service provider did not attract Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) provisions.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 80\text{G}$	Endocrine and Breast Surgery Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Exemptions	For obtaining approval under $\S 80\text{G}(5)$ , the assessee must first secure registration under $\S 12\text{AB}$	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 92\text{C}$	Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT	Following co-ordinate bench decisions, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was directed to delete the adjustment made to royalty payment for trademark use, as the assessee had benchmarked the transaction correctly.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 115\text{JB}$	Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT	Write-off of the unamortized balance of Passive Infrastructure (PI) assets (following a merger and to align accounting policies with AS-14) did not fall under any adjustment clauses of Explanation 1 to $\S 115\text{JB}$ ; hence, the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) adjustment was invalid.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 144\text{B}$	Hasmukh Nanalal Parekh v. Union of India	Failure to grant an opportunity for personal hearing and adjournment request to a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) assessee before passing a reassessment order in a faceless assessment rendered the reassessment order liable to be quashed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 144\text{B}$	Vijay Thakkar v. National Faceless Assessment Centre	Where the final assessment order was passed without considering the assessee’s reply and supporting documents to the show-cause notice-cum-draft assessment order, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 151$	Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Agroha Fincap Ltd.	The sanction granted by the Competent Authority using the language, “Yes, I am convinced it is a fit case for reopening of assessment under $\S 147$ by issuing notice under $\S 148$ ,” was held to satisfy the mandate of $\S 151$ .	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 194\text{H}$	Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT	Discount given to prepaid SIM card distributors was a trade discount, not commission under $\S 194\text{H}$ hence no TDS obligation arose.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
$\S 220$	Court on its Own Motion v. Anuradha Misra	Contempt proceedings were dropped where the Principal Commissioner rejected the stay application with brief but reasoned order, directing a 20 percent deposit of demand, as there was no wilful disobedience of the earlier court order.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 29.10.2025