INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 31.08.2026
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 2(14) / Section 54B | Vasudev, Harsora v. ITA Dhar | Where assessee sold ancestral agricultural land and capital asset status/Section 54B claims lacked record evidence, ex parte appellate order was set aside and remanded for de novo consideration upon submission of complete documents. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 10(10B) | Nanak Chand v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar | Compensation received by a retired BSNL employee under BSNL VRS-2019 was held to be retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B) rather than Section 10(10C), making it eligible for exemption. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 11 / Section 12 | Jogniya Mata Shaktipith Vikas Sansthan v. Income Tax Officer | Exemption could not be denied for want of Section 12AA registration when the Tribunal had already directed the grant of such registration; matter remanded to give consequential effect. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 12A / Section 12AB | Shree Mahaveer Swami Panchsikhri Jinalya Trust Kalani & Co LLP v. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption | Form 10AB renewal could not be rejected on the technical ground of lacking registration prior to 01.04.2021 when the trust held a valid registration granted on 02.12.2022 and had no adverse findings on objects. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 12AA | Jogniya Mata Shaktipith Vikas Sansthan v. Income Tax Officer | Where proceedings were a continuation of an original Form 10A application under Section 12AA, registration should have been granted under Section 12AA instead of Section 12AB with restricted validity. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 32(1) | Hi-Tech Radiators (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Excess consideration over net asset value in a slump sale recognized as goodwill was eligible for depreciation, as restrictions under sixth proviso to Section 32(1) apply only to amalgamations. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 32(1) / Section 37(1) | Hi-Tech Radiators (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Non-compete fees recognized in a slump sale cannot be capitalized to the intangible block for depreciation under Section 32; it is allowable only as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 3 v. Gujarat State Road Developement Corporation Ltd. | Project expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business in executing public infrastructure without grants cannot be disallowed merely because corresponding revenue was not recognized in that specific year. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 54 | Subh Karan Yadav v. Income-tax Officer | Exemption under Section 54 was denied because the residential plot was purchased and house constructed in the wife’s name; both sale and purchase must be executed by the same assessee under Section 2(7). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 54F | Subh Karan Yadav v. Income-tax Officer | Section 54F relief is unavailable when the original transferred asset is itself a residential house, in addition to the new asset being acquired in the wife’s name. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 54F | Vinodbhai Chhaganbhai Tamboli v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | The cost of the new asset under Section 54F includes both the purchase price and subsequent expenditure on renovation/reconstruction required to make the residential house habitable. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69 | Anita Bafna v. Income-tax Offficer | Unexplained investment must be assessed in the financial year the funds were actually paid/invested (FY 2017-18 via cheque), and cannot be shifted to a later year merely due to subsequent deed registration. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69A | Pradipkumar Vallabhdas Joisar v. Income-tax Officer | Reassessment based on a third-party complaint/loose note alleging cash transactions in a land dispute was quashed where the assessee had no ties to surveyed entities and no evidence supported cash exchange. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69C | Satpal Nandrajog v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Ex parte additions for cash payments and rent receipts were remanded for fresh adjudication after the assessee demonstrated inability to attend proceedings due to mental illness since 2011. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 147 | Satpal Nandrajog v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | NaFAC validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 144B and relevant CBDT circulars to conduct faceless reassessments and pass orders under Section 147 read with Sections 144, 144B, 151A, and 147A. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 147 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. NK Proteins (P.) Ltd. | Reassessment initiated beyond 4 years was quashed for lack of jurisdiction where the assessee had made full and true disclosure and no additions were ultimately made on the primary reopening reasons. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 153A / Section 148 | Krishna Mohan Potluri v. ACIT | Where the AO failed to initiate Section 153A proceedings within the limitation period following a Section 132A requisition, resorting to new Sections 148/148A was held impermissible and proceedings were quashed. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 244A | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bank of Baroda | When issuing tax refunds, the Revenue must adjust/appropriate the interest component first before applying payments toward principal tax to uphold time-value-of-money and prevent unjust enrichment. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 245D(4A) | B.L. Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India | The 18-month statutory period under Section 245D(4A)(iii) is mandatory and runs from original allotment to the Interim Board; an administrative transfer does not extend limitation, rendering later orders void. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 264 | Sri Kaushik Narayan Bhattacharya v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax | A revision petition under Section 264 is maintainable once the limitation period for filing an appeal has expired without an appeal being preferred or condonation sought. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 271(1)(c) | Krishna Mohan Potluri v. ACIT | Where the substantive reassessment order making additions under Section 69A was quashed, the consequential penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 272A(2)(e) | Swamy Vivekanandha Vidhyala Trust v. Income-tax Officer, Exemptions | Penalty for late filing of return by a trust can only run up to the outer time limit prescribed under Section 139(4), not up to the date of filing in response to a notice under Section 148. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |