IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 01.12.25
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| 12A | Harmony Educational Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) | Commissioner (Exemption) was justified in rejecting the registration of an assessee running a school without competent authority approval, charging high fees, earning high profits, and having non-charitable objects. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 14A | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. EYGBS (India) (P.) Ltd | Disallowance under section 14A for expenditure related to exempt dividend income from mutual funds was deleted when the investments were made and liquidated within the year, resulting in no opening/closing balances, and the disallowance was ad hoc. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 36(1)(va) | FIL India Business & Research Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Income-tax Department | Disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF was deleted when payment was made by the assessee within the stipulated date and debited in their bank, but not credited to the EPFO account due to technical glitches beyond the assessee’s control. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 68 | Mukesh Vallabhdas Shah v. Income-tax Officer | Gains from share transactions traded through the stock exchange were not treated as unexplained cash credit as the assessee discharged their onus by providing complete documentary evidence (purchase/sale details, broker certificate). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 69 & 44AD | Nikita Gupta v. Income-tax Officer | No addition was made for cash deposits up to Rs. 2 lakhs (out of Rs. 2.5 lakhs deposited) by a small gold dealer during demonetization who offered presumptive income under section 44AD, citing CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 80P | District Co-operative Sugar Cane Supply Ltd v. Income-tax Officer | Two points: 1) Deduction under section 80P for interest on FDs made to comply with statutory reserve requirements requires recomputation with reference to interest earned on such investments. 2) Addition made on unoffered commission income was deleted as the full commission/grant receivable qualified for deduction under section 80P. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 92C (TP Method) | Netflix Entertainment Services india LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Assessee, a limited-risk distributor of a global OTT platform, was wrongly reclassified by the TPO as an entrepreneurial entity; the TNMM (Transactional Net Margin Method) remained the most appropriate method, and the ‘Other Method’ adopted by the TPO was unsustainable. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 92C (Turnover Filter) | FIL India Business & Research Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Income-tax Department | AO/TPO was directed to re-consider comparables by properly applying the turnover filter (Rs. 4 to 5 crores) and exclude a company that failed this filter (turnover of Rs. 3.65 crores). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 92C (TP Adjustment & Sec. 10AA) | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. EYGBS (India) (P.) Ltd | Assessee having a SEZ unit and eligible for section 10AA deduction who voluntarily offered TP adjustments in returns (as per an APA) could not be denied the section 10AA exemption on the income relating to those adjustments, as the income was not enhanced by the AO. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 143 | Nikita Gupta v. Income-tax Officer | Issue regarding non-credit of pre-paid self-assessment tax (Rs. 21,700) was remanded back to the AO for necessary verification. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 158BC | Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) v. H B Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. | Addition for disallowed losses on sale of shares in a block assessment was deleted as all transactions were duly recorded in books and disclosed in returns, and no single transaction was found undisclosed. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 159 | Anita Rani v. Income-tax Officer | Attachment of the joint bank account of the wife of a deceased partner for recovery of the firm’s dues was unjustified and set aside, as there was no evidence she inherited any estate from the partners and liability under section 159 did not arise. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 201 & 40(a)(i) | Netflix Entertainment Services india LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Since the assessee opted for settlement of the appeal under section 201/201(1A) by availing the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme-2020, the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) made by DRP in the assessment would not survive (as per CBDT Circular No. 12 of 2024). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 270A | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran | Penalty levied under section 270A was deleted as the impugned notice did not delineate which particular limb or clause of section 270A(9) was attracted. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 271(1)(c) | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran | Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted where the assessee voluntarily offered additional income in compliance with a section 153A notice, and the disclosure was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 271AAB | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran | Penalty order under section 271AAB(1A) was legally unsustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to specify the relevant limb of the section in the notice. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 29.11.2025