INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 07.09.2026
INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 07.09.2026
| Section | Relevant Act | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation |
| Section 36(1)(iii) | Income-tax Act, 1961 | GTV Sez Phase 1 (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment unit Face Less Income-tax Department | Grant of an occupancy certificate is not determinative for allowability; interest on borrowed funds utilized for constructing commercial buildings put to use in the claim year with rental income assessed as business income is allowable as a revenue deduction. | Click Here |
| Section 36(1)(iii) | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Inox Leisure Ltd. | Interest expenditure on interest-bearing loans from a holding company invested in shares is allowable as business expenditure when made to expand business activities rather than merely to earn dividends. | Click Here |
| Section 37(1) | Income-tax Act, 1961 | GTV Sez Phase 1 (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment unit Face Less Income-tax Department | Non-receipt of an occupancy certificate does not determine commercial exploitation; advertisement and marketing expenditure incurred to promote commercial space offered for rental income is allowable under business expenditure. | Click Here |
| Section 45 | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Melongos India (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer | Each registered sale deed executed across different years for immovable property transfer constitutes an independent transfer, making capital gains chargeable in the respective transfer years with computation confined to the transferred portion. | Click Here |
| Sections 54D, 54F & 54G | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Melongos India (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer | The restriction from Goetze (India) Ltd. applies only to the Assessing Officer; an appellate authority is required to examine fresh claims for deductions raised during appeal on merits even if not made in original or revised returns. | Click Here |
| Section 56(2)(viib) | Income-tax Act, 1961 | GTV Sez Phase 1 (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment unit Face Less Income-tax Department | Revenue cannot reject the DCF approach under Rule 11UA or apply the NAV method solely for residents when shares are issued at the same premium to both resident and non-resident shareholders based on DCF valuation. | Click Here |
| Section 69 | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ivar Estates (P.) Ltd. | Statutory presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C do not apply against an assessee when an addition for unexplained investment is made solely on a third-party vendor’s notebook entry and mobile photograph without corroborative evidence. | Click Here |
| Section 69A | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ivar Estates (P.) Ltd. | Unaccounted business income additions based on WhatsApp chats, loose sheets, and ERP data without identifying payers, confirming purchasers, or showing contemporaneous cash receipt/deployment are unsustainable and must be deleted. | Click Here |
| Section 69A | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sahil Salim Zari v. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation | Cash payments made for property purchases out of accumulated foreign salary savings, supported by credible employment and earnings evidence matching earnings capacity, are not unexplained despite the absence of an exact cash trail. | Click Here |
| Section 87A | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Kajol Patel v. Income-tax Officer | Full rebate under section 87A is allowable under the new tax regime for income including STCG taxable under section 111A, in the absence of any express statutory restriction during the relevant year. | Click Here |
| Section 115JB | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. | Disallowances determined under section 14A read with Rule 8D for expenditure relating to exempt income cannot be added back while computing book profit under section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax purposes. | Click Here |
| Section 199 | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Avni Dogra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | Assessees cannot be denied credit for TDS deducted by an employer from salary or held responsible for its non-deposit with the Government, making demands raised by not granting such credit under section 143(1) quashable. | Click Here |
| Section 220(2) | Income-tax Act, 1961 | K.R. Ushasree v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax | Interest under section 220(2) can be demanded only upon failure to pay the amount after service of the notice of demand under section 156 and expiry of the specified period, and not from the date of filing the return. | Click Here |
| Section 234A | Income-tax Act, 1961 | K.R. Ushasree v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax | Waiver applications under Clause 2(c) of the CBDT Waiver of Interest Order, 2006, are ineligible and rightly rejected when returns were filed before a favorable High Court order and principal tax remains unpaid as per assessed demand. | Click Here |
| Section 271(1)(b) | Income-tax Act, 1961 | High Voit Electicals P. Ltd. v. Income-tax officer | Penalties for alleged non-compliance with section 142(1) notices cannot be sustained where an assessee erroneously allotted a partnership PAN obtained a fresh company PAN, filed returns under the correct PAN, disclosed all receipts, and had no sustainable quantum additions. | Click Here |
| Section 271(1)(c) | Income-tax Act, 1961 | High Voit Electicals P. Ltd. v. Income-tax officer | Concealment penalties cannot survive when foundational additions do not exist, such as when receipts assessed under an old departmental-error PAN were already accounted for and offered to tax under the correct PAN and additions were deleted to prevent double taxation. | Click Here |
| Section 271(1)(c) | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Melongos India (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer | Penalty for concealment is not a fit case for levy when an assessee disclosed an entire property transaction but offered capital gains in a different year, as the issue was debatable and partly arose from deeming provisions under section 50C. | Click Here |
| Section 271B | Income-tax Act, 1961 | High Voit Electicals P. Ltd. v. Income-tax officer | Penalty for failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB is not sustainable when an assessee complied with audit obligations under the correct company PAN where income was actually assessed despite an initial departmental PAN status mismatch. | Click Here |
| Section 271F | Income-tax Act, 1961 | High Voit Electicals P. Ltd. v. Income-tax officer | Penalties for failure to furnish returns under an old, incorrect PAN are unwarranted and liable to be deleted when the assessee possessed two PANs due to a departmental error and correctly filed and was assessed under the new company PAN. | Click Here |