IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 20.03.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title / Authority | Brief Summary | Citation |
| Income Tax Act | Sec 2(1A) | B.M. Govardhana Murthy v. DCIT | Agricultural income cannot be treated as “Other Sources” if ownership is undisputed and the income was accepted in prior years, even if old documents are missing. | Click Here |
| Income Tax Act | Sec 12AB | Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT(E) | Major Ruling: Registration renewal cannot be denied because a trust deed lacks an “irrevocability” clause if the state law (MPT Act) already makes the trust irrevocable. | Click Here |
| Income Tax Act | Sec 32 | Wheels India Ltd. v. ACIT | Assessees are entitled to claim the remaining 50% additional depreciation in the subsequent year if the machinery was used for <180 days in the year of acquisition. | Click Here |
| Income Tax Act | Sec 36(1)(vii) | Ipfonline Ltd. v. DCIT | To claim a Bad Debt deduction, a mere write-off in the books of accounts is sufficient; the assessee is not required to prove the debt is actually irrecoverable. | Click Here |
| Income Tax Act | Sec 43CA | Mukesh Vasantkumar Chandan v. ITO | If a developer adopts Stamp Duty Value as turnover under Sec 44AD, a separate addition of the same differential under Sec 43CA is prohibited double taxation. | Click Here |
| Income Tax Act | Sec 48 | Zarah Rafique Malik v. ITO | Expenses incurred for an OFS (Offer for Sale) in an IPO, proportionate to the promoter’s shareholding, are deductible as “cost of transfer” while computing capital gains. | Click Here |
| Income Tax Act | Sec 54F | Romaben Keyur Thakore v. DCIT | Sec 54F does not require construction to start after the sale of the asset. Payments made to a builder before the transfer are eligible for exemption. | Click Here |
| Income Tax Act | Sec 68 | Bharat Kumar Gadodia v. ACIT | Share sale proceeds are genuine if backed by demat/bank statements and BSE records; Revenue cannot make additions without evidence of price manipulation. | Click Here |
| Income Tax Act | Sec 92C | ACIT v. Aegis Ltd. | The TPO cannot re-characterize an Investment in Preference Shares as a “Loan” to impute notional interest without evidence of a sham transaction. | Click Here |
| Income Tax Act | Sec 147 | Gulbrandsen (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Reopening an assessment on the same material already examined (and where a final order was missed due to limitation) is an invalid “change of opinion.” | Click Here |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 19.03.2026