INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 23.09.20226

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 4	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Amount treated by AO as money market difference was actually a payment made by the assessee and thus not taxable.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 5	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Where estimated dividend and interest income lacked supporting details, taxability was restricted to actual receipts and interest on shares in assessee’s name.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 12AB	Church of St. Francis Xavier v. CIT (Exemption)	Absence of a written trust deed or MOA cannot justify rejection of registration under section 12AB for public charitable trusts governed by Canon Law with proof of legal existence.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 28(i)	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Addition of unrecorded income based merely on estimation from unaudited accounts without evidence of accrual or receipt was deleted.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 28(i)	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	MMOP additions on securities with negative opening balances and non-delivery were deleted following earlier Tribunal findings, leaving only brokerage taxable.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 28(i)	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	AO was directed to adopt the correct money market trading loss of Rs. 3.29 crores as per Annexure M-1 instead of the incorrect Rs. 32.94 lakhs.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 28(i)	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Dispute over profit calculation involving Mazda Industries (9% CIL Bonds vs. 9% IRFC Bonds) was remanded to verify if Rs. 1.93 crores was offered to tax.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 28(i)	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Addition for negative opening balance on non-delivery of 11.5% Central Loan 2007 securities was deleted following earlier Tribunal decisions.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 28(i)	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Trading profit additions based on third-party info without sharing relied-upon documents, involving RF or family transactions, were deleted.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)	Brij Bihari Kaushik v. ACIT	Ad hoc disallowances on staff welfare, rent, and vehicle expenses were unsustainable as expenses were backed by business records without personal use evidence.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 50C	Coimbatore Pioneer Trading & Warehousing Ltd. v. DCIT	Stamp duty value as on agreement date applies rather than enhanced value where land transfer terms and consideration were crystallized prior to guideline value increase.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 56	Bright Lifecare (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	AO cannot substitute Rule 11UA merchant banker DCF valuation with NAV method merely because actual results differed from projections.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 56	Bright Lifecare (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	Reclassification of CCPS from borrowings to share capital without receiving consideration does not trigger section 56(2)(viib) addition.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 68	Libra Natural Resources (P.) Ltd. v. ITO	Reassessment order was quashed because the AO failed to issue a separate speaking order disposing of the assessee’s reopening objections.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 68	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Addition under section 68 was justified after the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of cash credits across three litigation rounds.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Addition representing opening balances of earlier years was deleted, and the balance amount was remanded for verification.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	AO was directed to allow telescoping/set-off of unexplained investments/expenditure as per earlier Tribunal orders.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69A	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Unexplained money addition was deleted as the Revenue failed to produce relied-upon evidence regarding SBI payments through bank accounts.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69A	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Addition for oversold position was deleted after the share broker demonstrated negative stock was from sales on behalf of clients.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69A	Brij Bihari Kaushik v. ACIT	Additions based solely on unauthenticated WhatsApp messages and section 132(4) statements without corroborative physical cash/proof are unsustainable.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69C	Brij Bihari Kaushik v. ACIT	Addition under section 69C was deleted where construction purchases were fully documented, made via banking channels, and GST/E-way bills were genuine.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 80A	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	AO directed to verify Chapter VI-A statutory deductions/allowances and grant them in accordance with law.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 145	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Interest income additions deleted where assessee consistently followed cash system of accounting; interest taxed only upon actual receipt.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 145	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	Where cash system of accounting for money market interest was accepted in past, authorities cannot force taxation on mercantile basis.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 153C	Naman Madan v. DCIT	Section 153C proceedings initiated long after completion of Section 153A assessments were time-barred and without jurisdiction.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 194H	PVR INOX Ltd. v. DCIT	Convenience fees retained by online booking platform (BookMyShow) are for independent services to customers, not commission, so no TDS applies under 194H.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 199	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	AO directed to grant credit for taxes already paid and TDS pursuant to Supreme Court directions.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 201	SBI Ambernath East Br v. ACIT, TDS	Compliance with interim judicial directions restraining LFC TDS non-deduction prevents bank from being treated as an assessee in default.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 220	Jyoti H. Mehta v. DCIT	In a de novo assessment after setting aside an earlier assessment, interest under section 220(2) runs from the date of default under the fresh demand notice.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 249	SBI Ambernath East Br v. ACIT, TDS	Belated appeals caused by staff transfers, retirements, and portal access issues constituted sufficient cause under section 249(3) to condone delay.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 271C	SBI Ambernath East Br v. ACIT, TDS	Penalties under section 271C for non-deduction of TDS on LFC were unsustainable due to reasonable cause under section 273B (compliance with court orders).	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961