IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 25.11.25

By | November 25, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 25.11.25

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 2(14)Mrs. Snehlata Goel v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxWhere the AO rejected a claim that land was agricultural and treated it as a capital asset without examining all statutory conditions under Section 2(14)(iii), the matter must be remanded for fresh consideration.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 12ABArham Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, ExemptionAssessee-trust was eligible for registration under Section 12A/12AB even if registration was initially denied solely due to the procedural lapse of not obtaining Charity Commissioner’s prior approval for loans/advances from trustees, as this did not constitute a legal violation.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 73Abhar Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxLoss incurred on the sale of shares received from the conversion of partly convertible debentures is not speculation loss because the shares were ‘created’ from the company’s own capital and not ‘transferred’ from any other person, making the Explanation to Section 73(1) inapplicable.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 80GArham Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, ExemptionSince the Commissioner was directed to grant registration under Section 12A/12AB (as per the preceding case), the Commissioner must also be directed to grant approval under Section 80G, which was rejected solely for lack of Section 12A registration.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 115JBDeputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Triumph International (India) (P.) Ltd.Assessee is entitled to claim set-off of the lower of cumulative brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation (as per books) while computing book profit under Section 115JB, even if parts of those were adjusted in earlier years.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 119Mahernagar Co-Op. Housing Service Society Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income-taxThe delay in filing a return due to the delayed audit by a Sub-auditor appointed by the State is a genuine predicament falling under CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2023, and thus, the delay should be condoned.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 132H. K. Jewels (P) Ltd v. Assistant Director of Income Tax InvestigationWhen IT Department intercepted and took custody of gold jewellery before the official search date mentioned in the Panchanama, the action was contrary to law, and the Panchanama must be quashed, and the jewellery released to the assessee.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 264Shushilaben Jayantibhai Patel v. Principal Commissioner of Income-taxFor an 82-year-old assessee suffering from Alzheimer’s who failed to file a return due to the default of her accountant, the Commissioner, in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 264, should examine the matter positively in the assessee’s favour and not reject the application on technical grounds.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 270ADeputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ajay Vision Education (P.) LtdA penalty notice issued under Section 270A that does not specify the relevant limb of the section (Section 270A(2) or 270A(9)) or the specific transgression will not survive and must be quashed.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ajay Vision Education (P.) LtdWhere unrecorded cash income was voluntarily disclosed in a reassessment return and accepted without further investigation, it cannot be concluded that there was concealment of income, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be deleted.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 24.11.2025