Important Income Tax case Laws 16.04.2026

By | April 23, 2026
0 Comment

Important Income Tax case Laws 16.04.2026

Relevant Act Section / Authority Case Law Title Citation Brief Summary
Income-tax Act, 1961 Sec 11 Suga Jeeva Oozhiyangal v. CIT (Exemptions) Click Here Exemption cannot be denied solely due to belated filing of Form 10B if the trust is otherwise entitled to relief under the law.
Income-tax Act, 1961 Sec 11 & 12 Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Nyas v. ITO Click Here Procedural lapse (omitting financial statements in Form 10B) does not justify rejection of exemption if substantive conditions are met.
Income-tax Act, 1961 Sec 12AB / 80G AS Ascent Welfare Society v. CIT Exemption Click Here Registration and 80G approval cannot be rejected merely because charitable activities have not yet commenced at the application stage.
Income-tax Act, 1961 Sec 22 Sumrit Impex (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Click Here Rental income from leasing property must be assessed as Income from House Property, not Business Income, consistent with prior years.
Income-tax Act, 1961 Sec 50C Vijay Pal Singh v. Assessment Unit, NFAC Click Here Additions based on circle rate are invalid if the AO fails to refer the matter to DVO after the assessee disputes the valuation.
Income-tax Act, 1961 Sec 68 Vaishnavi Agro v. ITO Click Here Bogus sales treatment upheld where customers were untraceable; no substantial question of law arose for further appeal.
Income-tax Act, 1961 Sec 144C Hansgrohe India (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Click Here Final assessment order passed without serving a draft order is vitiated and cannot be cured by remand or re-labeling.
Income-tax Act, 1961 Sec 201 Karnataka Grameena Bank v. ITO Click Here Matter remanded to allow bank to produce evidence (Form 15G/15H) to prove TDS compliance despite admitted technical defects.
Income-tax Act, 1961 Sec 249 Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Nyas v. ITO Click Here Delay in filing appeal condoned due to absence of valid DIN on the rectification order, leading to a bona fide belief of invalidity.
Income-tax Act, 1961 Sec 281B ARL Infratech Ltd. v. DCIT Click Here Provisional attachment based on mere apprehension without crystallized liability is unjustified; quashed subject to 20% deposit.