IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 02.12.2025

By | December 3, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 02.12.2025

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 6Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Paul DhinakaranAssessee, an individual who left India for employment in the USA, was treated as a Non-Resident for relevant AYs as his stay in India was less than 182 days. Consequently, foreign-sourced deposits/expenses could not be taxed.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 10(10AA)Chander Shekher Saini v. Income-tax OfficerAssessee, an employee of Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), was entitled to exemption for leave encashment under this section for the period of service under the State Government, but not for the period of service under the Corporation.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 10(37)Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ashok SharmaInterest on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, paid under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, was considered part of the original consideration and hence exempt from tax under section 10(37).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 11Dudhsagar Research and Dement Association v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, ExemptionContributions received by a charitable trust from milk societies on a compulsory basis, linked to milk fat supplied, were not treated as corpus donations under section 11(1)(d) as they were not voluntary, and were held to be taxable as income.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 12ABRadhe Shamka Foundation v. DCIT/ACITRejection of a trust’s fresh registration application, despite extensive documentary evidence of charitable activities, was unjustified when based solely on a physical enquiry without properly verifying the submitted evidence.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 32 (Goodwill)Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Baxter Pharmaceuticals India (P.) Ltd.SLP dismissed: Where depreciation on goodwill arising from a slump sale was considered during regular assessment, the AO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 32 (Assets)Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Baxter Pharmaceuticals India (P.) Ltd.SLP dismissed: Assessee who purchased a unit on a slump sale was entitled to claim depreciation on assets based on the valuation made by an expert valuer of each individual asset, as the sale consideration was for the entire unit without individual values.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(iii)Thiruvalluvar Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. ACITWhere an assessee advanced funds to a subsidiary and had sufficient interest-free funds, the presumption operates that investments were made from the interest-free funds, thus proportionate disallowance of interest was not warranted.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxCustomer acquisition cost (porting charges, data entry, handset subsidy, etc.) was held to be in the nature of revenue expenditure and, therefore, allowable.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 50CNeha Gupta v. Income-tax OfficerProvisions of section 50C (special provision for computing full value of consideration) were not applicable to the transfer of only leasehold rights in land, as the transaction did not involve the transfer of land or building or both.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 54Jagdish Chand Verma v. Income-tax OfficerAssessee was eligible for deduction under section 54 for investing the sale consideration of a residential flat in India into a residential property in Australia, as the amendment mandating investment in India was not applicable for the relevant year.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 54FMrs. Sainaba Hamza Koya v. Income-tax OfficerRejection of the request to close the Capital Gain Account after constructing a house using borrowed funds was justified, as the AO’s satisfaction about actual utilization is essential, even though the section permits the use of borrowed funds.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 54GNeha Gupta v. Income-tax OfficerFor claiming deduction on shifting an industrial undertaking, the date of allotment of the new industrial plot (within one year of the sale) was to be treated as the date of purchase, even if the conveyance deed was registered later.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 56Thiruvalluvar Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. ACITWhere allotment of shares at a premium was supported by a DCF valuation method, and the authorities rejected the claim on mere technicalities, the assessee was directed to file a revised valuation considering the book value of land, and the AO was directed to recompute the income.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 68 (Gifts)Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Paul DhinakaranSince seized documents showed that gifts recorded therein exceeded the gifts disclosed in the return, there was incriminating material, giving the AO jurisdiction to make additions in the assessment framed under section 153A.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 68 (Liabilities)Harsha Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxSLP dismissed: Liabilities owed to banks, claimed to arise from unpresented cheques to suppliers, were treated as bogus credits and added to income as they were not supported by bank statements or other documentary evidence.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 69AGupta Subhash & Sons HUF v. Income-tax OfficerCash deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs during demonetization, claimed to be from cash sales, was deleted when the assessee had maintained proper books of account and the cash book justified the deposits.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 148AAssistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Arunkumar Mahabirprasad JatiaSLP dismissed: Where an order under section 148A(d) (conducting inquiry before notice) was quashed, the subsequent reassessment order based on that quashed order could not survive.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 153CHarigovind v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Non-corporateAs the seized materials were handed over to the assessee’s AO after April 1, 2021 (the cut-off for the new regime), the provisions of the old section 153C would not apply, and the notice issued under it was quashed.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 158BDSmt. B. Renuka v. Joint Commissioner of Income-taxAdditions made on account of unaccounted investment in school property, based on documents seized from premises substantially under the control of the assessee’s husband, were upheld by rightly invoking the statutory presumption under section 132(4A).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 01.12.25