Important Income Tax Case Laws 23.04.2026
| Relevant Act | Section / Authority | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 43B | ExxonMobil Services and Tech. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Click Here | Disallowance of bonus/commission u/s 143(1) due to mismatch with Audit Report remanded; AO must verify if actual payment was made within time. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 54F | Sundararaman Narayanan v. DCIT | Click Here | Matter remanded to determine the substantive person liable for tax where capital gains/exemption involved property in wife’s name. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 68 | DCIT v. ACE Infracity Developers (P.) Ltd. | Click Here | Unsecured loans from listed entities/NBFCs with verified ITRs, bank statements, and repayments cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 68 | Hansa Harischandra Thakur v. ITO | Click Here | Demonetization cash deposits explained as sale consideration of property with purchaser’s confirmation are not taxable u/s 68. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 68 / 143(2) | Ajay Kumar v. DCIT/ACIT | Click Here | Scrutiny selection without fulfilling CBDT Instruction No. 5/2017 is void ab initio; subsequent additions are liable to be deleted. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 80-IA(4) | CIT v. Patel Engg. Ltd. | Click Here | Construction company bearing all development/investment risks is a “Developer” (not just a works contractor) and eligible for deduction. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 92C | ExxonMobil Services and Tech. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Click Here | Notional interest on AE receivables should be benchmarked on LIBOR + 200 bps for foreign currency; Working Capital Adjustment must be granted. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 199 | Sundararaman Narayanan v. DCIT | Click Here | TDS credit cannot be denied on procedural grounds (mismatch with spouse’s PAN) if the corresponding income is offered to tax. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 220(1) | Aps Hydro (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | Click Here | Recovery notice quashed where the department could not prove service of prior orders/intimations or explain prolonged inaction. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 234A | ExxonMobil Services and Tech. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Click Here | Interest u/s 234A is not leviable if the return is filed within the CBDT extended deadline and no self-assessment tax is due. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 234C | ExxonMobil Services and Tech. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Click Here | Interest u/s 234C must be computed with reference to returned income, not assessed income. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 254(2) | SKF India Ltd. v. ACIT | Click Here | Miscellaneous Application (MA) is valid if filed within limitation from the date of communication; recall allowed to rectify apparent mistakes. |
For More :- Read Important Income Tax Case Laws 22.04.2026