IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 14.10.25
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| 10A | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. | Exemption under section 10AA could not be disallowed for an SEZ unit when all documentary evidence for software export and conditions under sections 10A and 10AA were met. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 10A | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. | Reopening an assessment based on a “change of opinion” was quashed, as the assessee’s claim for section 10AA exemption had already been accepted during the original assessment with full documentary evidence. | Income-Tax Act, 1961 | |
| 11 | KSB Care Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) | A delay in filing Form No. 10 due to technical glitches should be condoned, and exemption under section 11(2) is allowable if the accumulated amount was used for charitable purposes within the specified time. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 11 | Global University Foundation v. Income-tax Officer (Exemption) | Exemption under sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied for a minor delay in filing the return and audit report during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially when they were available to the AO during processing. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 32 | PR. Commissioner of Income-tax -7 v. Sony India (P.) Ltd. | Depreciation is allowable on assets that were discarded during the year and were no longer owned by the assessee. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 36(1)(va) | Atamjeet Singh Sandhu v. Income-tax Officer | The matter was remanded to segregate employer’s and employees’ PF/ESI contributions and restrict the disallowance only to the employees’ share that was deposited after the statutory due dates. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 41(1) | Gurmeet Singh Sethi v. Income-tax Officer | Additions for cessation of trading liability under section 41(1) were unsustainable without proof of actual remission or cessation. The failure of creditors to respond to notices is not sufficient grounds. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 68 | Gurmeet Singh Sethi v. Income-tax Officer | Additions under section 68 for cash deposits were deleted as the source was explained by withdrawals from the same bank and business asset disposals, which the AO failed to verify from available records. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 69 | Prabhakar Nerulkar v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax | Reopening an assessment was not justified when the assessee had already declared the income under the Income Disclosure Scheme (IDS), 2016, and received a valid certificate. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 80-IA | Sushee Infra & Mining Ltd. v. ACIT | The case was remanded to the AO to verify the project commencement date for a sub-contractor claiming section 80-IA benefits, in light of the second proviso to section 80-IA(4) applicable from April 1, 2017. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 92BA | Sushee Infra & Mining Ltd. v. ACIT | A transfer pricing adjustment based on alleged misallocation of expenses between eligible and non-eligible units was deleted as the allocation issue was a corporate matter, not related to the pricing of Specified Domestic Transactions (SDTs). | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 92C | PR. Commissioner of Income-tax -7 v. Sony India (P.) Ltd. | In a distribution business, if no Arm’s Length Price (ALP) adjustment was made by the TPO, a separate Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) adjustment is not required. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 139 | Income-tax Bar Association v. Union of India | The CBDT was directed to extend the ITR filing due date to maintain the mandatory one-month gap after the extension of the tax audit report due date, to uphold legislative intent. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 148 | Dilipbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Assessment Unit Income-tax Department | A reassessment notice issued beyond the time limit prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act (TOLA) was held to be invalid. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 149 | Vipendra Ravindra Mandal v. ITO | A reopening notice issued beyond three years was invalid because the income likely to have escaped assessment was below the monetary threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 151 | Sportking India Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax | Reassessment proceedings were quashed because the approval for reopening was obtained from the Commissioner instead of the specified competent authority (Joint Commissioner), rendering the approval invalid. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| 178 | Gayatri Projects Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-2(1) | While recovery of tax dues is barred during a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), there is no bar on determining the tax liability. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 13.10.2025