IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 04.12.2025

By | December 4, 2025

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 04.12.2025

SectionCase Law Title / NotificationBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 80G)Income Tax NOTIFICATION NO. 166 / 2025, DATED 02-12-2025CBDT notified ‘Shree Balakrishna Lalji & other deities temple’, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai, as a place of historic importance and public worship of renown for the purpose of  Section 80G exemption (deduction for donations).NOTIFICATION NO. 166 / 2025, DATED 02-12-2025Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 2(9)Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhanrishi Commosales (P.) Ltd.Property purchased in a company’s name using routed funds, where the funding company neither got shares nor had a loan agreement, making advances time-barred. The shareholders/directors who took over the property indirectly became beneficial owners, classifying the transaction as a benami transaction under  Section 2(9)(A).Click HereProhibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
Section 2(15)GIA India v. Income-tax Officer (Exemptions)Assessee, a non-profit company, imparted systematic instructions in gemmology and related fields. This activity was held to amount to ‘education’ within  Section 2(15), making the denial of exemption under  Section 11 unsustainable, despite no affiliation to a recognized authority.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 4Sterling Holiday Resorts Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxWhere an assessee engaged in a time-share business consistently recognized only part of the membership fee as income in the year of receipt and deferred the remainder, and this policy was accepted by the Tribunal in earlier years, the addition of the deferred income to taxable income for the current year was not justified.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 9Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-taxPayments made by the assessee-company to a foreign company for availing International Private Leased Circuits (IPLC) services were held not to constitute royalty, as Explanations to  Section 9 (Finance Act, 2012) were not applicable to the pre-amendment assessment years.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 10ACognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-taxLoss of eligible Section 10A units could be set-off against other income of the taxpayer. Also, interest on employee loans and sale of scrap (arising in the ordinary course of the export business) were entitled to 100\% exemption/deduction under  Section 10A/10B.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 32Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Echjay Industries (P). Ltd.Goodwill recorded upon amalgamation, representing the excess of consideration over net assets, was held to constitute an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)Sterling Holiday Resorts Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxDisallowance of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenditure was deleted by applying the principle of judicial consistency, as identical expenditure had been allowed by the Tribunal in earlier years.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)SAP India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxFollowing precedent in the assessee’s own case, employee stock compensation cost (ESOP expenditure) was held to be allowable under Section 37 despite being disallowed by the A.O. as capital and notional.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 40(a)(i)Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-taxPayments made to a USA company for IPLC services could not be disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source, as the disallowance provision is discriminatory and not applicable in terms of Article 26(3)of the India – USA DTAA (Non-Discrimination Clause).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 44AEKulandaivel Thaalamuthu v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxAssessee owning not more than ten LPG goods carriages during the year was prima facie computable under the presumptive scheme of Section 44AE, not Section 44AD. Rectification to apply Section 44AE(2) was justified.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 48Sterling Holiday Resorts Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxWhere the assessee failed to provide the collector or circle rate to substantiate the Fair Market Value (FMV) as of 01.04.2001 for Long-Term Capital Loss calculation, the matter was remanded to re-determine the capital gains/loss after obtaining the relevant collector or circle rate.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 68Basaveswar Co-Op Credit Society Niyamit v. Income-tax OfficerWhere a credit cooperative society furnished member details (Aadhaar/PAN) to explain cash deposits during the demonetization period, the issue was remanded to the AO for proper verification, as the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the evidence.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 68Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. KRBL Infrastructure Ltd.Assessee received an unsecured loan from a corporate lender via banking channels. Since the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established, and the obligation to prove ‘source of source’ did not apply for the relevant year, the addition under Section 68 was unjustified.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 68Preity G Zinta v. Income-tax Officer, International TaxationAssessee borrowed money in a series of transactions and repaid the loan of the final funding entity by disposing of a residential flat. Since the transactions resulted in merely transferring liability and the assessee derived no benefit, the addition under Section 68 was deleted.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 80ACBasaveswar Co-Op Credit Society Niyamit v. Income-tax OfficerFor assessment years up to 2017-18, the deduction under Section 80P was not covered by the proviso to Section 80AC. Therefore, the claim for Section 80P deduction by a credit cooperative society could not be denied solely because the return was filed after the due date.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
 Section 80GR. Mangaldas Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions)The denial of Section 80G(5) registration to a trust was not sustainable, as the trust sufficiently explained that it intended to provide financial assistance to students in India in Indian Rupees, countering the objection that it intended to apply funds outside India.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
 Section 80GOur Shoulders Foundation v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions)Where a trust filed a Section 80G(5)(iii) application beyond the prescribed timeline, the application should be treated as filed under clause (iv) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) and decided on the merits, rather than rejected solely on the ground of delay.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
 Section 80GGCRajen Jayantilal Merchant v. Assessment Unit, Juris. AODisallowance of deduction under Section 80GGC for a donation to a political party was justified where the party’s bank account was used by an accommodation entry provider, suggesting the donation was layered and cash was returned.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
 Section 92CSAP India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxA company engaged in the development and sale of accounting/business management software was held to be functionally dissimilar to the assessee-distributor, and thus was not a valid comparable.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
 Section 92CSAP India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxOutstanding receivables from Associated Enterprises (AEs) were held to constitute an independent international transaction requiring separate benchmarking, and could not be netted against AE payables.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
 Section 92CSAP India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxFor calculating notional interest on delayed receivables from an AE where invoices were in Euro, EURIBOR (a currency-relevant benchmark) should be accepted for computing the ALP, rather than the SBI short-term deposit rate used by the TPO.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
 Section 148Jagtamba Timber Mart v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxIn the faceless regime (Section 151A), an initiation and issuance of a reopening notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was held to be invalid, and the consequential reassessment order was quashed.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
 Section 245CInterim Board for Settlement v. Krushang Prakashbhai SoniSLP dismissed: Settlement applications filed before 31.03.2021 were deemed pending for the Interim Board’s consideration, and the retrospective amendment of Section 245C(5) by the Finance Act, 2021, could not invalidate applications filed between 01.02.2021 and 31.03.2021.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
 Section 275Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central v. Ashwani GuptaPenalty orders under Sections 271D/271E passed by the Addl./Jt. CIT beyond six months from the end of the month of the assessment order (as per  Section 275(1)(c)) were held to be barred by limitation.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
 Section 276CCAmit Kapoor v. Income-tax OfficeIn a criminal complaint for failure to file returns, permitting the complainant to introduce additional departmental documents (like a  Section 148 notice) during pre-charge evidence under  Section 91 Cr.P.C. was justified, as the documents were necessary for adjudication and did not alter the complaint’s basis.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 03.12.2025

Category: Home

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com