INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 21.09.2026

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 9	Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Mere payment by an Indian resident to a non-resident does not constitute income accruing or arising in India without a real and substantive territorial nexus or application of deeming provisions; Section 148 notices were quashed for want of jurisdiction.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 9	Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Protective recovery is impermissible under the Act; withholding the TDS refund of Teva Israel merely because reassessment proceedings were pending against Teva USA was held unsustainable, and the refund was directed with interest subject to security.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 9	Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	The AAR, after admitting an application under Section 245R(2), erred in declining a ruling by attributing income to a third entity without business connection and alleging a sham arrangement; the receipt was held not chargeable to tax in India.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 11	Pushtiseva Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)	Where Section 11 exemption was denied under Section 143(1) while Section 12AB registration was pending, the statutory appeal did not become infructuous since CIT(A) and CIT(E) have distinct jurisdictions; AO was directed to reconsider the exemption.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 12AB	Society of St. Vincent De Paul Bondel v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)	At the final registration stage under Section 12AB, the CIT(E) must restrict enquiry to verifying the genuineness of activities and compliance with applicable laws; rejecting registration on the mode or quantum of expenditure was held invalid.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 12AB	Womens Golf Association of India v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)	Section 12AB registration cannot be rejected merely because high sponsorship receipts were earned, provided the receipts fund charitable objects (promoting sports) and there is no profit motive or non-genuine activity.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 12AB	Jalandharnath Pith Trust Siremandir Jalore v. CIT(E)	Rejection of Section 12AB registration for lack of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was restored for verification after the assessee subsequently secured such local state registration.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 12AB	Jalandharnath Pith Trust Siremandir Jalore v. CIT(E)	A sweeping observation by the CIT(E) that genuineness was not established, absent any specific adverse finding or identification of sham activities, cannot justify final rejection and requires factual re-examination.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 12AB	Jalandharnath Pith Trust Siremandir Jalore v. CIT(E)	Where state trust registration was pending when the Section 12AB application was taken up, the assessee should be given time to submit the certificate upon receipt rather than being forced to file a de novo application.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 12AB	Jalandharnath Pith Trust Siremandir Jalore v. CIT(E)	If a Section 12AB application could not be decided on the merits due to non-compliance with notices, a final effective opportunity must be granted to the assessee to submit documents and establish its case.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 12AB	Jalandharnath Pith Trust Siremandir Jalore v. CIT(E)	Procedural defects—such as an incomplete Form 10AB or filing under an incorrect clause—are curable and must not defeat a substantive registration claim under Section 12AB/80G.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)	Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Delhivery (P.) Ltd.	ESOP expenditure incurred by the assessee constitutes legitimate business expenditure and is allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1).	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)	Syed Asif Ali v. ACIT	A contractual obligation to share foreign exchange fluctuation gains exceeding 2% with an overseas buyer (termed as rebate/discount) is an allowable business expense under Section 37(1).	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)	Syed Asif Ali v. ACIT	Blanket and excessive ad hoc disallowances made by the AO across various administrative and welfare heads (job work, travel, office expenses) must be restricted to reasonable proportions based on facts.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 56	Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Delhivery (P.) Ltd.	For AY 2018-19, the AO could not discard a share valuation report issued by a Chartered Accountant under Section 56(2)(viib), as the CBDT notification mandating Merchant Banker valuation applied only prospectively.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69C	Shraddha Prakash Mehta v. Income-tax Officer	Reassessment under Section 148 is invalid and void ab initio where the sanctioning authority approved only the Section 148A(d) order and failed to grant independent statutory approval for issuing the Section 148 notice.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69C	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Grab a Grub Services Ltd.	Additions towards unexplained expenditure under Section 69C cannot be sustained simply because vendors failed to respond to Section 133(6) inquiries, provided payments were made through banking channels and duly accounted for in the books.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 80G	Kinchitkaram Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions)	A trust propagating Vedic philosophy and scriptures through lectures cannot be arbitrarily tagged as ‘religious-cum-charitable’ to deny Section 80G approval; CIT(E) was directed to grant 80G approval.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 80G	Womens Golf Association of India v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)	Rejection of Section 80G approval was set aside and directed to be granted where the sole ground for refusal was the rejection of underlying Section 12AB registration, which stood reversed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 80G	Jalandharnath Pith Trust Siremandir Jalore v. CIT(E)	When a Section 12AB rejection is set aside and remitted, the consequential rejection under Section 80G cannot stand independently and must also be restored for reconsideration.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 80HHC	Orient Crafts Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax	Failure by the AO to exclude 90% of export quota premium from business profits under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial, justifying revision under Section 263.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 80HHC	Samtex Fashions Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax	Premium received on the sale of export quota entitlements allocated by AEPC generates domestic horizontal revenue without foreign exchange realization and cannot be factored into Section 80HHC export turnover deductions.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 149	Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Invoking the 10-year extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) against Teva USA based on an overseas bank account held by Teva Israel, without proving ownership or putting the assessee to notice under Section 148A(b), was held time-barred and without jurisdiction.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 154	Shiv Kumar Keshwani v. Income-tax Officer	Inadvertently reporting 100% capital gains in the return instead of the assessee’s actual 50% co-ownership share constitutes a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under Section 154 to ensure only real income is taxed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 195	Amazon Web Services Inc v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax	Reopening an assessment for alleged non-deduction of TDS on foreign remittances based purely on portal reconciliation mismatches without providing details or conducting proper Section 148A inquiries was unsustainable and remitted back.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 251	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Grab a Grub Services Ltd.	Rule 46A is triggered only when fresh additional evidence is produced and admitted before the CIT(A); in the absence of new evidence, calling for an AO remand report under Rule 46A(3) is not mandatory.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961