IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 11.11.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 4 | ACIT, Exemption v. Urban Improvement Trust | An Urban Improvement Trust, constituted under State law, was considered an instrumentality of the State (Article 12) and entitled to immunity from Union taxation (Article 289). Thus, its income (from grants, land fees, etc.) was not chargeable under the Income-tax Act. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961; Constitution of India (Arts. 12 & 289) |
| Section 11 | Columbia Global Center in India v. Income-tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward – 1(2), Mumbai | Delay in filing Form No. 10 for claiming accumulation benefit under Section 11(2) was condoned because the substantive requirements (details in return, Board resolution, audit report in Form 10B) were fulfilled. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 28(v) | Atul Kumar Gupta v. Income-tax Officer | Remuneration received by an assessee-partner (a chartered accountant) from the firm is to be treated as business income. Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning this income (including depreciation) is allowable under Sections 32 and 37. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 32 | Unique Tags (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax | Reopening of assessment beyond four years was unjustified when the Assessing Officer alleged incorrect additional depreciation but the assessee had furnished all material facts and justification for the claim during the original assessment. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 36(1)(vii) | Brahm Precision Materials (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (A)/NFAC, Delhi | Foreign investment written off due to huge losses by the company was allowed as a revenue expenditure (business loss) under Section 36(1)(vii) as the investment was made for business expansion and exports. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40 | Raghav Agritech v. Income-tax Officer | Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments to a contractor was unwarranted as the expenditure was capitalized and not claimed as a revenue deduction under Sections 30 to 38. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 44AD | Roshan Mohan v. Income-tax Officer | The assessee’s revised return claiming presumptive taxation under Section 44AD was rejected because his PR/communication agency business, which involved receipts with TDS under Section 194J, is expressly excluded by Section 44AD(6)(iii). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 48 | Vishnukumar Gokalchand Gupta v. ACIT | The matter regarding the deduction of cost of construction/interiors claimed as cost of improvement on the sale of property was remanded for reconsideration based on evidence of ownership and actual enhancement of the property under Section 49(1). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 68 | Brahm Precision Materials (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (A)/NFAC, Delhi | No addition was warranted under Section 68 for an amount received in foreign currency claimed as an advance against sales from a related company, as the sum was received through proper banking channels as part of business receipts. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69B | Dhirajlal Laljibhai Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | Reopening notices based solely on loose papers seized from a third party (‘D’) were quashed because the seized material related to a later period, and there was no direct link or corroborative evidence to the petitioners’ earlier property purchases. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 127 | Murliwala Agrotech (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | A fresh order for transfer of case (centralization in Delhi) was set aside when an earlier similar order had been quashed for lack of hearing, and the new order reflected no material change in circumstances. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 149 | Ashitkumar Satishchandra Patel v. Income-tax Officer | Reopening notice dated 30-8-2022 was invalid because it was issued beyond the “surviving time” limit of 25-8-2022, which was calculated based on the extended period under TOLA (Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961; TOLA, 2020 |
| Section 194 | Cogent Realtors (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), TDS | Orders holding the assessee in default for not deducting TDS on External Development Charges paid to HUDA were quashed because Section 194I (invoked by the department) was not applicable to such charges. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 199 | Surbhi Anand v. ACIT | Assessee was entitled to full credit for TDS deducted on interest from RBI Bonds (paid on maturity) because the assessee had already offered the interest to tax on an accrual basis in earlier years and paid the tax. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 246A | Zydus Healthcare Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax | High Court can entertain a writ petition against an order under Section 148A(d) (order disposing of objections for reassessment) in its discretion, notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 10.11.2025