IMPORTANT INCOME CASE LAW 26.11.25

By | November 26, 2025

IMPORTANT INCOME CASE LAW 26.11.25

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
11Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Charity Fund v. Income-tax Officer (Exemption)Assessee trust was entitled to exemption as the electronic filing of Form 10 with accumulation purposes referring to trustees’ resolution was considered sufficient disclosure under Section 11(2) read with Rule 17. Reassessment based solely on insufficient specificity was set aside.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
12ABBhavnagar Dashashrimali Kantibandh v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)Provisional or regular registration under Section 12AB (for trusts incorporated after 01.04.2021) cannot be denied solely because the objects target a particular community. Proper procedure requires granting registration if genuineness and objectives are acceptable.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
28(va)Ravi Shroff v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxSale of shares by an assessee (who was a minority shareholder) where no consideration was received towards a non-compete clause will result in capital gain, not business receipt, as provisions of Section 28(va) were not applicable.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
36(1)(va)Crown Gaskets (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax OfficerAssessee was entitled to benefit of deduction for employees’ PF/ESI contribution if the payments were within the time prescribed, especially where the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider a revised Tax Audit Report and challans showing timely deposit.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
48Sanjeev Garg v. A.C.I.TCost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement (including a co-owner’s accepted renovation expense) was to be allowed for computing the assessee’s share in Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from the sale of inherited residential property.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
54Sanjeev Garg v. A.C.I.TExemption under Section 54 could not be denied where the failure to construct a residential property within the prescribed time was due to a delay by YEIDA in registering and delivering possession of the residential plot to the assessee.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
80GIndishine Foundation v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)An order rejecting an application for 80G approval that is non-speaking and fails to deal with objections or record specific deficiencies must be set aside, and the matter restored for de novo consideration on merits.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
151Sanjeev Garg v. A.C.I.TThe PCIT did not adopt a mechanical approach in granting approval for a Section 148 notice when they recorded being satisfied in view of the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer, thus obtaining necessary sanction under Section 151(2).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
153CParag Rameshbhai Gathani v. Income-tax Officer, International TaxationA satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C recorded with an inordinate delay (nearly four years after search and almost two years after assessment of the searched person) leads to the quashing of the impugned Section 153C notice.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
282ADanieli and C Officine Meccaniche SPA v. ACITAn assessment order that is not signed as mandated under Section 282A is invalid and liable to be quashed, irrespective of whether the order was issued electronically or in paper form.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 25.11.25