IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 16.12.25
| Act | Section | Case Law Title / Press Release | Brief Summary | Citation / Source |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Press Release (Compliance) | CBDT Nudges Against Bogus Deduction Claims | The CBDT launched a “Nudge Campaign” on 12-12-2025 targeting intermediaries and taxpayers filing ITRs for AY 2025-26 with bogus deductions (primarily fake donations to RUPPs). Taxpayers are urged to voluntarily revise returns to avoid penalty/scrutiny. | CBDT Press Release, 13-12-2025 |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 37(1) | UBS Business Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT | Deduction for repairs and maintenance was allowed as the entire cost was recovered from AEs with a markup. The order was held not to be “erroneous or prejudicial,” making revision under Section 263 invalid. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 40A(3) | S.R. Constructions v. DCIT | Assessee claimed each cash payment was below the $\text{Rs. 20,000 threshold or fell under exceptions. The matter was remanded to verify whether any single payment actually exceeded the statutory limit on a given day. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 56(2)(viii) | Ajay Kumar v. Income-tax Officer | Interest on enhanced compensation is taxable as ‘Income from Other Sources’ under 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt, regardless of whether it is considered capital or revenue under the Land Acquisition Act. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69A | EI Resorts & Clubs (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Additions based on third-party excel sheets (dumb documents) and retracted statements without independent verification of cash flow or counterparties were held unsustainable and deleted. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69C | S.R. Constructions v. DCIT | Additions for bogus expenditure made solely on the basis of search statements and cheque books, despite the assessee providing affidavits and work orders, were deleted as there was no corroborative evidence. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 80-IAC | FIVD India Consulting (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Deduction for specified business was allowed even though Form 10CCB was filed belatedly, as the audit was completed by the specified date. Such a procedural delay cannot defeat the substantive claim. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 80P | Diamond Jubilee Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India | A bank whose license was cancelled by the RBI but continued as a co-operative society is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned on investments with other co-operative banks. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 143 / 148 | EI Resorts & Clubs (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | An assessment order issued without a valid Document Identification Number (DIN) or not via the designated ITBA portal is invalid and non-est. Additionally, a notice under 148 wrongly premised on a search is defective. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 148 | Inder Dev Gupta v. ACIT | Both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 270A | Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. v. ACIT | Penalty for under-reporting was deleted where the assessee surrendered a debatable claim for health and education cess and filed Form 69 to update the liability within the statutory window, thus gaining immunity. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 271(1)(c) | Director of Income-tax (Int. Tax) v. Niko Resources Ltd | Penalty for concealment cannot be levied if the AO fails to find that the actual details supplied in the return were incorrect, erroneous, or false; a mere difference in opinion on taxability is insufficient for penalty. | Click Here |
For More :- Read Important GST case laws 15.12.2025