IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 15.10.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant 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 Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 2(47) | Maimoon Fashion Accessories (P.) Ltd. v. ITO | Transfer 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 Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 11 | Deendayal Seva Pratishthan Shakambhari v. ITO, Exemption | Matter 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 Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 14A | Gateway Distriparks Ltd. v. DCIT | Disallowance 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 Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(3) | Abiram Agency v. ITO | Matter 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 Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 68 | Mo. Shariph Kureshi v. ITO | If 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 Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 68 | Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF v. NFAC, Delhi | Additions 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 Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 68 | Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF v. NFAC, Delhi | Reassessment 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 Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 115BAA | Sarla Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT | An 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 Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 115JB | Gateway Distriparks Ltd. v. DCIT | No adjustment is permissible to the book profits computed under Section 115JB (MAT) for disallowance made under Section 14A. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 153C | DCIT v. Smt. Kamla Prabha | Seized 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 Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 14.10.25