IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 13.11.2025

By | November 14, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 13.11.2025

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
90 read with 9Canon India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxAssessee was entitled to complete credit of foreign taxes paid on export income under Section 90 read with the India-Japan DTAA, even if the income was exempt under Section 10A or neutralized by brought-forward losses.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
11, 12Saraswati Devi Educational and Social Trust v. CPC/ITO, ExemptionDenial of exemption solely due to delayed filing of the audit report was not justified, as the report was available with the Assessing Officer, making the lapse a technical or procedural one.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
11(2) read with 119(2)(b)St. Anne’s School v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions)Delay in filing Form No. 10 for accumulation under Section 11(2) due to the Chartered Accountant’s inadvertence and issues with the new e-filing system ought to be condoned, as the resolution for accumulation was already signed.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
12ABSushila Devi Centre for Professional Studies and Research v. PCIT (Central)The PCIT (Central) lacked jurisdiction to cancel or refuse registration under Section 12A/12AB when exemption matters remained assigned to the CIT (Exemptions) under a CBDT order, even after the assessee’s assessment jurisdiction was transferred to a Central Circle post-search.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
32Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) v. ACP Tollways (P.) Ltd.An SPV operating a road project on a Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) basis is eligible to claim depreciation under Section 32, as it is deemed to have acquired and owned the project for the development, maintenance, and toll collection period.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
32, 37Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxIssue regarding the claim of depreciation or deduction on the capitalized Asset Restoration Cost (ARC) obligation for leased premises was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the quantum and computation in light of relevant case law.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
35ABBVodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxAnnual variable license fee paid to DoT, previously claimed as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1), was held to be capital in nature and eligible for amortisation under Section 35ABB, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharti Hexacom Ltd.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
36(1)(iii)Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxDisallowance of interest on borrowings could not be sustained when the investment in Capital Work-in-Progress (CWIP) was covered by interest-free shareholders’ funds, necessitating a fresh examination of the issue.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
37(1)Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxLoss incurred due to subscriber-based fraud or non-payment by customers was allowable as a business deduction under Section 37(1) as it was incidental to carrying on the business.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
37(1)Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxSubstantial expenditure on advertisement (granty signs/hoardings) was allowable as revenue expenditure, as the assets had a short shelf-life and did not create an enduring benefit.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
37(1)Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxPenalty paid to DoT for non-compliance with subscriber verification requirements (a breach of license terms) was held to be allowable as a business deduction, as it was not a statutory offence under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
37(1)Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxRoyalty-WPC charges paid to DoT on a recurring revenue-share basis for the actual use of GSM spectrum/microwave frequency were held to be revenue expenditure, as they were not for obtaining the license itself.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
37(1)Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxAd-hoc disallowance of 10% of commission expenses paid to distributors under the post-paid model was not sustainable when the assessee had furnished necessary details including Form 16A for major payments.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
40A(2)Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxRejection of network site rental charges paid to Indus Towers was unjustified when comprehensive evidence was provided, necessitating the allowance of the deduction after verifying its crystallization.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
41 read with 263Surbhit Impex (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax – 8PCIT could not invoke Section 263 to revise the assessment solely based on a different opinion regarding the cessation of liability under Section 41, as the Assessing Officer had made due enquiry and taken a plausible view.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
44AD read with 263Kadalur Ramakrishna Mahesha v. Principal Commissioner of Income-taxPCIT could not invoke revisionary proceedings under Section 263 to estimate income at 8% when the assessee (a civil contractor with receipts over Rs. 2 crores) was not eligible for Section 44AD and the Assessing Officer had accepted the 6% profit estimate after thorough analysis.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
47(iii)Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxThe transfer of Passive Infrastructure assets to a subsidiary without consideration under a court-approved demerger scheme qualified as a gift and was not regarded as a transfer under Section 47(iii), thus depreciation was allowable.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
68Vodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxThe issue of substantial security deposits received from distributors where confirmations were not furnished was remanded for reconsideration with directions to furnish primary evidence, following the procedure set in an earlier year.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
91 (Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme)Tejal Mayur Rao v. Principal Commissioner of Income-taxRejection of a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was unjustified, even though the non-resident assessee filed the appeal manually (not online as per Rule 45 due to no Aadhar-PAN linkage), as the appeal was pending on the specified date.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
92CVodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxTransfer Pricing Adjustment regarding Advertisement and Promotion (AMP) expenses was deleted, as there was no evidence of an international transaction to promote foreign AEs’ brands, and the expenses were integral to the assessee’s own business.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
92CVodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxTransfer Pricing Officer’s approach of questioning the commercial prudence of royalty payment and determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) without prescribed methods was rejected, following the Tribunal’s view in an earlier assessment year.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
148Shabana Aijaz Khan v. Income-tax Officer, International TaxA notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, as mandated by the faceless reassessment procedure, was invalid and liable to be quashed.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
194HVodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxUpfront discount allowed to distributors of pre-paid SIMs/talktime was not ‘commission’ because the relationship was Principal-to-Principal; hence, there was no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 194H, and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
194JVodafone Digilink Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxPayments for domestic roaming charges to other telecom operators did not constitute ‘fees for technical services’ under Section 9(1)(vii) as the process was automated with no human intervention; thus, no TDS was required under Section 194J.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
222K.Rethinam v. Tax Recovery OfficerThe Tax Recovery Officer was bound to lift the attachment order passed under Section 222 when the issue had attained finality at the ITAT level and the entire arrears as per the ITAT’s order had been paid by the assessee.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
244ACanon India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxInterest under Section 244A was not available on a refund arising solely from the allowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC), as this did not represent an excess payment to the Indian exchequer (i.e., not from advance tax, TDS, or TCS).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
254Attivo Protezione (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax OfficerAn inordinate and unexplained delay of 1370 days in filing an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal could not be condoned for want of “sufficient cause,” despite the claim of lack of remedial advice from a consultant.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 12.11.2025