INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 13.05.2026
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| 35AD | GSTAAD Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Reassessment beyond four years is void if the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during the original assessment of capital expenditure. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 37(1) | Ritu Sanjay Toshniwal v. ACIT | Foreign agency commission is disallowed if the recipient’s identity and nature of services aren’t proven; however, additions should be reduced if the amount was later taxed as a write-back. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 40(a)(ia) | PCIT v. Media Worldwide Ltd. | Disallowance is not warranted in cases of “short deduction” (e.g., deducting at 2% instead of 10%) as opposed to “non-deduction.” | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 48 | Manjit Singh Baxisingh Dev v. Int Tax | Indexation for an under-construction flat must be computed from the year of acquisition of rights (allotment), not from the actual years of payment. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 56(2)(x) | Amar Narendra Joshi v. ITO | Receiving a new flat under a redevelopment scheme in exchange for an old flat is not “inadequate consideration” and does not attract Section 56 additions. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 68 | PCIT v. Escorts Ltd. | Reassessment is invalid if it seeks to make the exact same addition that was previously annulled by the CIT(A) in the original assessment. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 68 | PCIT v. Sunilkumar Parasmal Jain | SLP dismissed; for bogus purchases, the addition should be restricted to a percentage (6% in this case) rather than the entire 100% of the purchase value. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 69C | Jagdeep Singh Gill v. DCIT | No addition can be made for unexplained expenditure based on loose papers found with a third party without corroborative evidence linking it to the assessee. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 80P | Aroor Central Service Co-Op Society v. ITO | Deduction under Section 80P is not available if the return of income is not filed within the prescribed statutory time limits. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 143(2) | Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi v. ACIT | An assessment order is void ab initio if the initial notice was issued by an Income Tax Officer (ITO) who lacked the required pecuniary jurisdiction. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 151 | Agroha Fincap Ltd. v. PCIT | SLP dismissed; the phrase “Yes, I am convinced it is a fit case” used by the Competent Authority constitutes valid sanction for reopening. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 151 | Skypak Travels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO | Reopening notice is invalid if approval is granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the specific authority mandated for cases beyond three years. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 254 | Aroor Central Service Co-Op Society v. ITO | Delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if the only reason provided is the negligence of a tax practitioner, as this is an unsatisfactory explanation. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |