IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 03.12.2025

By | December 3, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 03.12.2025

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 2(8)Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (BPU) v. Anku Nivesh Niryat (P.) Ltd.Order declining provisional attachment of property as non-benami, based on a now-recalled Supreme Court judgment (Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom), was held unsustainable and remanded for de novo adjudication.Click HereProhibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
Section 2(15)Neuro update Chennai v. ITO, ExemptionAssessee, a public charitable trust, organizing neurology conferences and workshops for advancement of education and public awareness, was held to be carrying out activities that squarely fall within ‘education’ under section 2(15).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 10(23C)Vaish Model Primary School Education Society v. AO (Exemption)Application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) could not be rejected simply because the educational society generated a surplus, or because the surplus was transferred to a School Development Fund for the established purpose of acquiring assets for the society’s objects.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 14APrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.SLP dismissed against the High Court order holding that no disallowance could be made under section 14A if no exempt income was earned by the assessee.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 23Laljibhai Godadbhai Chaudhari v. Income-tax OfficerAssessee failed to prove that two properties (out of four owned) were self-occupied or uninhabitable, thus, the estimation of fair rental value based on comparable market data for those properties as deemed let-out was upheld.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 24Laljibhai Godadbhai Chaudhari v. Income-tax OfficerAssessee’s claim for deduction of housing loan interest under section 24(b) was disallowed due to lack of supporting evidence. The matter was remanded to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate the claim.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 32Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Unique Tags (P.) Ltd.SLP dismissed against High Court order that reopening of assessment beyond four years was unjustified, as the assessee had furnished all material facts for claiming additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) during the original assessment.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(iii)IBS Software Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxDisallowance of proportionate interest expenditure was justified where the assessee advanced interest-free loan to a wholly owned subsidiary from interest-free funds but failed to furnish supporting documents for commercial expediency.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(va)IBS Software Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxDelayed deposits of employees’ contributions to PF and ESI, even if made before the due date for filing the return, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)IBS Software Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxProvision created for loss on onerous contracts based on anticipated cost overruns was held to be a contingent liability during the relevant year, as settlement deeds were executed later, making the deduction claim unsustainable.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 56Kunal Rajendra Mashru v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxWhere assessee failed to provide adequate documentation (affidavit, bank statements) to confirm a gift received from an HUF of which he was a member, the matter was remanded for proper verification by the Assessing Officer.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 69Rajnish Kasturchand Ostwal v. Income-tax Officer, International TaxationFunds for property purchase by an NRI originated from salary earned and saved abroad and remitted via authorized banking channels. Such remittances were not taxable in India under section 5(2) and could not be treated as unexplained investment under section 69.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 92BIBS Software Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxFollowing the retrospective amendment by Finance Act, 2012, ‘receivables’ are explicitly included in the definition of ‘International Transactions’.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 92CIBS Software Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxFor benchmarking notional interest on interest-free loans to Associated Enterprises (AEs) in foreign currencies, the use of LIBOR was held to be more appropriate than domestic interest rates.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 92CIBS Software Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxIssue of charging notional interest on delayed realization of receivables was restored to TPO/AO for de novo adjudication, as authorities failed to examine the assessee’s policy of consistently not charging interest from both AEs and non-AEs.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 92CIBS Software Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxWhere TPO computed notional interest on expense recovery from AEs, the issue was restored for reconsideration after the assessee produces documents to establish that the recovery was on a cost-to-cost basis (i.e., did not include any mark-up).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 151ASumit Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxNotice under section 148 and the resultant reassessment order were quashed and set aside because the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, contrary to the faceless regime.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 153CShiv Kumar Saraf v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-taxWhere a search was conducted on finance brokers, but no incriminating material relating to the assessee was found, the statutory conditions for invoking section 153C were not satisfied, and the assessment could not have been initiated under section 147.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 199Abdul Rahman Asad v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxCredit for TDS on sale of property must be allowed in the year the income is assessable (year of transfer), even if the purchaser deposited and reported the TDS in the subsequent year, provided Form 71 was duly filed.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 205Mani Madhukar Bansal v. ACIT/DCIT, International TaxationRevenue cannot deny tax credit to an employee-assessee if tax was deducted from salary, even if the employer failed to issue Form 16, provided the assessee produces relevant salary slips showing TDS.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)Principal Commissioner of Income- tax v. Shrem Alloys (P.) LtdPenalty for alleged non-disclosure of foreign asset in the prescribed format was unwarranted as the assessee had already disclosed the asset in original returns, books of account, and the subsequent section 153A return before any penalty proceedings.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)Stepathlon Lifestyle (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxPenalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars was not justified where the disallowance was due to an inadvertent omission in computation (provision for gratuity/leave encashment/donation), which was fully disclosed in audited accounts and the tax audit report, and the assessee accepted the disallowance.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
Section 271DPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Parivar Television (P.) Ltd.SLP dismissed against the High Court order holding that penalty proceedings under section 271D (for failure to comply with section 269SS) would not be sustainable if the block assessment order made no mention of the initiation of such penalty proceedings.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 02.12.2025