IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 06.11.25

By | November 7, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 06.11.25

Here is the requested information formatted in a table.

SECTIONCASE LAW TITLEBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 10(23C)Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Shivaji NagarAn autonomous examination board that had approval under section 10(23C)(iv) was entitled to the exemption, even if it inadvertently claimed it under section 10(46) instead.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 10(20)Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Mukund Bhavan TrustA major port trust was held to be entitled to assessment as a ‘Local Authority’ despite the Explanation in section 10(20) which excludes port trusts.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 11Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Mukund Bhavan TrustWhere a trust registered u/s 12A (since 1930) was assessed as an AOP, its status as a trust was upheld because the facts were unchanged from previous years where its status had been consistently accepted.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 11Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative BuildingFor a trust duly registered under section 12A, the late filing of its audit report does not disentitle it from the benefits and exemption under section 11.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 11Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative BuildingIf income from a prior period is brought to tax in the current year, the expenses related to that prior period must also be set off against it, and only the net income can be taxed.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 11Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative BuildingWhen a charitable trust is entitled to exemption under section 11, any capital expenditure it incurs must be treated as an application of income for the trust’s objects.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 11Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative BuildingIf an assessee is granted the benefit of section 11 exemption, expenditures for gratuity funds and superannuation funds must be allowed as an application of income.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 37(1)Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative BuildingWhere a trust on a cash accounting system claimed interest on loans, these expenses (not booked earlier) couldn’t be deemed “prior period expenses.” Thus, disallowance u/s 14A was unjustified.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 54FSiddharth Bhasker Shah v. Principle Commissioner of Income-taxAn assessee claimed section 54F deduction for investing in one triplex flat (which the AO accepted). Revisionary proceedings based on the ground that it was six flats converted into one were not justified.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 72Sysco Industries Ltd. v. Chairman, Central Board of Direct TaxesA company in CIRP during Covid-19, which filed returns late due to NCLT suspension and IRP failure, demonstrated ‘genuine hardship.’ The delay was condoned to allow carry forward of losses.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 74Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative BuildingAn assessee could not claim a loss during the assessment year 2004-05 for assets that were actually sold in the financial year 1999-2000.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 115BAAACIT v. Magik Kraft (P.) Ltd.An assessee who inadvertently filed Form 10-IB instead of Form 10-IC (for the concessional tax rate) but rectified the technical error and met all substantive conditions, was entitled to the benefit.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 145Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative BuildingFor an assessee using the mercantile system, wharfage income that accrued in the previous year relevant to AY 2003-04 must be taxed in AY 2003-04 itself.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 145Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative BuildingFor an assessee using the mercantile system, income from environment monitoring charges that accrued in the previous year was correctly included as income for that year.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 149Manisha Agarwal v. Income-tax OfficerFor AY 2014-15, where the notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 8-6-2021, the time limit for the subsequent notice u/s 148 expired on 8-7-2022. A notice issued on 25-7-2022 was barred by limitation.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 149Sarthak Gupta v. Income-tax OfficerCiting the Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (SC) decision, notices issued u/s 148 on or after 01-04-2021 for AY 2015-16 were liable to be dropped (as they didn’t fall within the TOLA period).Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Section 250G Lalanatha Reddy v. Asst Commissioner of Income-taxWhere the DGIT (Investigation) transferred pending appeals away from Commissioner (Appeals)-11, any subsequent orders passed by that Commissioner were illegal and without jurisdiction.Click HereINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 04.11.2025