IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 15.10.2025

By | October 16, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 15.10.2025

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 2(15)Jewellers and Diamond Traders Association v. CIT (Exemption)Rejection of a trust’s registration under Section 12AB on the grounds of “mutuality” (taxability issue) was beyond the Commissioner’s scope at the registration stage. Registration should be granted as activities qualified as advancement of general public utility under Section 2(15).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 2(47)Maimoon Fashion Accessories (P.) Ltd. v. ITOTransfer of land was deemed to occur in the financial year 2009-10 when possession was handed over after receiving full consideration under an oral agreement, not in the subsequent year (2016) when the conveyance deed was registered.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 11Deendayal Seva Pratishthan Shakambhari v. ITO, ExemptionMatter remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication as the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the trust’s revised Form 9A (enhancing carry forward of income) filed before the assessment was completed.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 14AGateway Distriparks Ltd. v. DCITDisallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for exempt dividend income must be restricted to the amount suo-motu disallowed by the assessee in line with earlier years’ orders, and not applied to the entire investments.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 40A(3)Abiram Agency v. ITOMatter remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh on the disallowance of cash payments under Section 40A(3), as the assessee contended a clear explanation for the cash mode was furnished before the first appellate authority.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 68Mo. Shariph Kureshi v. ITOIf an Assessing Officer accepts the objections of the assessee upon issuance of a notice under Section 148 and does not assess the income which was the basis of the notice, he cannot independently assess income under some other issue.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 68Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF v. NFAC, DelhiAdditions made under Section 68 on account of unsecured loans were not justified as the loans were received via banking channels, and the assessee submitted confirmation/details, and the loans were fully or substantially repaid shortly thereafter.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 68Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF v. NFAC, DelhiReassessment proceedings based on “suspicious high-value transactions” in bank accounts were not sustainable as the accounts were disclosed in the original assessment, and the Assessing Officer failed to prove the assessee did not disclose all material facts.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 115BAASarla Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. PCITAn assessee company cannot be allowed to revise its return and file Form 10-IC after the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) to avail the benefit of lower taxation under Section 115BAA.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 115JBGateway Distriparks Ltd. v. DCITNo adjustment is permissible to the book profits computed under Section 115JB (MAT) for disallowance made under Section 14A.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 153CDCIT v. Smt. Kamla PrabhaSeized registered property documents of the assessee during a search at a third party’s premises could not be treated as incriminating material if the transactions were already disclosed and assessed; addition towards excess indexed cost of acquisition was deleted.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 14.10.25