IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 11.11.2025

By | November 12, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 11.11.2025

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 4ACIT, Exemption v. Urban Improvement TrustAn Urban Improvement Trust, constituted under State law, was considered an instrumentality of the State (Article 12) and entitled to immunity from Union taxation (Article 289). Thus, its income (from grants, land fees, etc.) was not chargeable under the Income-tax Act.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961; Constitution of India (Arts. 12 & 289)
Section 11Columbia Global Center in India v. Income-tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward – 1(2), MumbaiDelay in filing Form No. 10 for claiming accumulation benefit under Section 11(2) was condoned because the substantive requirements (details in return, Board resolution, audit report in Form 10B) were fulfilled.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 28(v)Atul Kumar Gupta v. Income-tax OfficerRemuneration received by an assessee-partner (a chartered accountant) from the firm is to be treated as business income. Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning this income (including depreciation) is allowable under Sections 32 and 37.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 32Unique Tags (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-taxReopening of assessment beyond four years was unjustified when the Assessing Officer alleged incorrect additional depreciation but the assessee had furnished all material facts and justification for the claim during the original assessment.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(vii)Brahm Precision Materials (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (A)/NFAC, DelhiForeign investment written off due to huge losses by the company was allowed as a revenue expenditure (business loss) under Section 36(1)(vii) as the investment was made for business expansion and exports.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 40Raghav Agritech v. Income-tax OfficerDisallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments to a contractor was unwarranted as the expenditure was capitalized and not claimed as a revenue deduction under Sections 30 to 38.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 44ADRoshan Mohan v. Income-tax OfficerThe assessee’s revised return claiming presumptive taxation under Section 44AD was rejected because his PR/communication agency business, which involved receipts with TDS under Section 194J, is expressly excluded by Section 44AD(6)(iii).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 48Vishnukumar Gokalchand Gupta v. ACITThe matter regarding the deduction of cost of construction/interiors claimed as cost of improvement on the sale of property was remanded for reconsideration based on evidence of ownership and actual enhancement of the property under Section 49(1).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 68Brahm Precision Materials (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (A)/NFAC, DelhiNo addition was warranted under Section 68 for an amount received in foreign currency claimed as an advance against sales from a related company, as the sum was received through proper banking channels as part of business receipts.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 69BDhirajlal Laljibhai Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxReopening notices based solely on loose papers seized from a third party (‘D’) were quashed because the seized material related to a later period, and there was no direct link or corroborative evidence to the petitioners’ earlier property purchases.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 127Murliwala Agrotech (P.) Ltd. v. Union of IndiaA fresh order for transfer of case (centralization in Delhi) was set aside when an earlier similar order had been quashed for lack of hearing, and the new order reflected no material change in circumstances.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 149Ashitkumar Satishchandra Patel v. Income-tax OfficerReopening notice dated 30-8-2022 was invalid because it was issued beyond the “surviving time” limit of 25-8-2022, which was calculated based on the extended period under TOLA (Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961; TOLA, 2020
Section 194Cogent Realtors (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), TDSOrders holding the assessee in default for not deducting TDS on External Development Charges paid to HUDA were quashed because Section 194I (invoked by the department) was not applicable to such charges.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 199Surbhi Anand v. ACITAssessee was entitled to full credit for TDS deducted on interest from RBI Bonds (paid on maturity) because the assessee had already offered the interest to tax on an accrual basis in earlier years and paid the tax.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 246AZydus Healthcare Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxHigh Court can entertain a writ petition against an order under Section 148A(d) (order disposing of objections for reassessment) in its discretion, notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 10.11.2025