INCOME TAX CASE LAWS DIGEST 06.06.2026
INCOME TAX CASE LAWS DIGEST 06.06.2026
| Relevant Act | Section(s) | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 69 | Dove Buildcon vs. ITO | Click Here | Addition made for unexplained investment was deleted because the assessee provided evidence proving the property was purchased and paid for in FY 2014-15, contradicting the AO’s database claim of an FY 2015-16 purchase. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 254(2) | Income-tax Officer vs. Infantry Security and Facilities | Click Here | Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, confirming that a subsequent SC ruling (e.g., Checkmate Services) cannot be used to rectify a past Tribunal order under Section 254(2), as rectificatory jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent from the record. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 10(5) & Section 201 | SBI Morena Tiraha Ambah Branch vs. Income-tax Officer, TDS | Click Here | A bank was rightly treated as an “assessee in default” under Section 201 for failing to deduct TDS on Leave Fare Concession (LFC) provided to employees whose travel itineraries included foreign stop-overs. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 200A & Section 234E | Ms. Shantilal vs. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | Appeals against CPC rectification orders imposing late fees under Section 234E were held maintainable. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing them as time-barred based on original Section 200A orders, as rectification rules at the time did not prescribe a time limit. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 246A | L. Gopalakrishnan vs. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | The High Court ruled that filing a statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 246A does not require any pre-deposit to be maintainable. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 36(1)(iii) / General Deductions | Income-tax Officer vs. Discovery Liquor House | Click Here | Disallowance of interest on unsecured loans was deleted because the assessee possessed sufficient interest-free funds, the loans were utilized for business payments, and the AO failed to establish a nexus of diversion for non-business use. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 143(3) & Section 147 | Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Adani Wilmar Ltd. | Click Here | Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, validating the quashing of a reopening notice issued after four years. Since the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts during the original Section 143(3) assessment, the allegation of accommodation entries did not justify reopening. |
| Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 | General Appellate / Review | Munnidevi Sitani vs. Benami Prohibition Unit (2), Department of Income-tax, Mumbai | Click Here | The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to restore appeals. The restoration simply followed the explicit liberty granted in the original order, which depended on the Supreme Court’s subsequent review and recall of the Ganpati Dealcom judgment. |