IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 16.10.2025

By | October 17, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 16.10.2025

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 10(1)Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vibha Agrotech Ltd.Income derived from the sale of foundation seeds by a company engaged in hybrid seed business was held exempt under Section 10(1) as agricultural income.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)
Section 11Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CentralGranting donations by one public charitable trust to another, even with common trustees, will not result in withdrawal of exemption unless misuse of funds by trustees is proven. Assessee trust was entitled to accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) since its Section 12A registration was restored. Purchase cost of fixed assets was allowed as an application of income under Section 11 following the restoration of 12A registration. Refusal to allow accumulation under Section 11(2) was justified because the trust did not state a specific purpose for the accumulation. Donations received towards the corpus fund were accepted as involuntary, deleting the addition. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo consideration of an adhoc disallowance of expenses without pointing out specific defects.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)
Section 35Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vibha Agrotech Ltd.Claim for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for scientific research expenditure was disallowed because the assessee failed to furnish the mandatory Form-3CK from the Competent Authority.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)
Section 43BMagnaquest Technologies Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxDeduction under Section 43B for unpaid liabilities (disallowed in the earlier year but paid during the current year) for service tax and TDS was allowed upon furnishing payment evidence; however, the addition for the balance amount without supporting evidence was sustained.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)
Section 54Yogesh Mutha v. Income-tax OfficerThe matter regarding exemption under Section 54 for investing sale consideration of a residential plot in the purchase of land with house construction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo decision, as the AO had not called for a report or inspected the site regarding the use of appurtenant land.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)
Section 54Nikhil Ravindra Manjrekar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC, DelhiDeduction under Section 54 was allowed as the assessee proved reinvestment of sale proceeds in a new residential property through verified banking transactions matching sale deed records.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)
Section 68Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CentralThe addition made under Cash Credit for cash deposits during demonetization was restored for de novo consideration, as the Assessing Officer had not disproved the assessee’s explanation of the source being reflected in its books of account.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)
Section 69ADilipsinh Ranjitsinh Chauhan v. Income-tax OfficerAddition under Unexplained Moneys was deleted as the assessee successfully explained that cash deposits in his bank account were made by a travel agent solely for the purpose of demonstrating sufficient funds for his son and daughter-in-law’s visa processing, providing complete evidence.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)
Section 80-IBCommissioner of Income-tax v. Indra HousingThe Tribunal’s order allowing deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a housing project was set aside as the assessee-firm failed to produce necessary documents to establish its role as a developer.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)
Section 199Upasani Super Speciality Hospital (P.) Ltd. v. Income -tax OfficerAn assessee-company that took over a hospital business was held entitled to credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), even though the insurance companies inadvertently deducted TDS in the name and PAN of the erstwhile partnership firm, as the income was taxed in the company’s hands and the firm did not claim credit.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)
Section 270AMagnaquest Technologies Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxPenalty proceedings for under-reporting of income as a consequence of misreporting were held validly initiated because the Assessing Officer had specifically recorded satisfaction for both in the show-cause notice, thus rejecting the assessee’s contention of a vague notice.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961 (ITA)

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 15.10.2025