6 Important Case Law in Income Tax 20.01.25
| Sr No | Case Law | Brief Summary | Relevant Act | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sanjay Ratra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | Reopening of Assessment Justified for Unexamined Cash Credit and Credit Card Transactions based on New Information | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 68 |
| 2 | Trigeo Image Systems (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax | Where the Reserve Bank of India granted ex-post facto approval for the realization made by the assessee, the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10A. | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 10A |
| 3 | R.C. Kannan v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 | The court held that the assessee was entitled to raise objections under Sections 264 and 246A even though they did not raise them during the original assessment proceedings. | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 50C |
| 4 | DCIT v. Triton Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd. | The court deleted additions made under Section 69C where the Assessing Officer failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove unaccounted payments made by the assessee. | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69C |
| 5 | Pattaveettil Parameswar Ramachandran v. Income-tax Officer | The court upheld the reopening notice issued by the Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee had failed to avail of opportunities to respond to the notice. | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 148 |
| 6 | Nikhil Sharma v. ITO | The court held that payments retained by e-commerce platforms were service fees, not commissions, and thus Section 194H was not applicable in this case. | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 194H |
| 7 | Sumit Bharana v. Union of India | The court ruled that the assessee’s application for compounding of an offense under Section 276B could not be rejected on the ground that the main accused company had not filed any such application. | Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 276B |