IMPORTANT INCOME CASE LAWS 08.12.2025

By | December 8, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME CASE LAWS 08.12.2025

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
10(38)Nilesh Bipinchandra Mehta HUF v. Principal Commissioner of Income-taxRevisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was quashed because the Assessing Officer’s acceptance of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) exemption on share sales, with no discrepancy in documents, was not considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
12ABRam Saran Das Kishori Lal Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)Cancellation of registration under Section 12AB(4) was held invalid because the alleged “specified violations” pertained to a period prior to April 1, 2022, before the provisions could be invoked.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
50CMs. Rupal Devang Naik v. Income-tax OfficerThe matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication where the assessee raised new factual issues (year of transfer, ancestral nature, stamp valuation, DVO reference, share) after the AO computed LTCG based on nil indexed cost and stamp value.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
68Siddhi Corporation v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle – 3(1)(1) AhmedabadReopening notice was not justified as the assessee’s name did not appear in seized material regarding bogus loans/advances, and the transaction was actually commission paid, not loans/advances received from the mentioned operator.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
68Dalmia Power Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxImpugned penalty notice was stayed because the order of the High Court regarding escapement of income on account of the share transaction was stayed by the Supreme Court (SC).Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
69CPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ravindra Bhaskar DeshmukhFurther reduction of disallowance for bogus purchases from 25% (by CIT(A)) to 12.5% (by ITAT) was considered a matter of estimation and did not raise a question of law.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
69CKanak Impex (India) Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Income-taxSpecial Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed against the High Court’s order which justified the addition of the entire amount of bogus purchases from hawala operators due to the assessee’s failure to prove the purchases.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
80GRam Niwas Modi Charitable Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption)Rejection of the application for 80G approval was remanded back as it was against the principles of natural justice because the assessee was not confronted on the issue, as the Commissioner incorrectly processed it as a Section 12AB application first.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
153Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(4), MumbaiNo assessment order could be passed against the transferee company due to the bar of limitation under Section 153(1), as the High Court’s observation was not a finding or direction under Section 153(6).Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
244ADen Discovery Digital Networks (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, NashikThe Assessing Officer should have allowed credit for advance tax and granted interest under Section 244A, even if the assessee inadvertently missed claiming the credit in the Return of Income, as the tax was reflected in Form 26AS.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
282General Traders v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-taxThe impugned reopening notice under Section 148 was quashed because it was not served upon the assessee at the registered e-mail address as mandated by Section 282, but instead was sent to an inoperative e-mail address.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX UPDATE 05.12.2025