IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 05.10.2025

By | October 6, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 05.10.2025

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
Section 5DCIT v. Jayapriya CompanyAddition for notional short-accrued interest deleted as the Assessing Officer’s assumption of a flat 24% rate across all loans was made without any supporting evidence.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 35DCIT v. Endurance Technologies Ltd.Assessment order passed on the name of a non-existing entity was declared null and void.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 35DCIT v. Endurance Technologies Ltd.Disallowance of scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) deleted because the claim was made as per books and supporting invoices, despite a minor mismatch with a final bill from a contractor. No excess deduction was actually claimed.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 35DCIT v. Endurance Technologies Ltd.Assessee’s claim for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was allowed, as the R&D unit had DSIR approval for part of the period, and an application for the remaining period was not rejected by DSIR.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(iii)DCIT v. Jayapriya CompanyNo interest disallowance warranted under section 36(1)(iii) even if loans to related parties were advanced at a lower/varied interest rate, since the borrowings were deployed in the course of the money lending business.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(vii)DCIT v. Jayapriya CompanyClaim for bad debts allowed as the written-off outstanding interest income was out of interest offered to tax in earlier years, fulfilling the conditions of section 36(2) read with section 36(1)(vii).Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 68Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kohinoor Foods Ltd.Addition sustained only to the extent of profit embedded in unsubstantiated bogus purchases, as the assessee had made payments through banking channels, thus explaining the source of funds.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 68Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kohinoor Foods Ltd.Reopening of assessment was justified where the Assessing Officer had specific information (STR report and bank statements) indicating the assessee had taken an accommodation entry via bogus purchases.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 69Mehul Ravjibhai Surani v. Assessment Unit Income-tax DepartmentReassessment order making an addition for alleged unexplained investment in shares quashed and set aside because the Assessing Officer did not consider the assessee’s reply to the show-cause notice-cum-draft assessment order.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 69ADCIT v. Jayapriya CompanyAddition for suppressed income under section 69A deleted by Commissioner (Appeals) to prevent double taxation, as the assessee had already disclosed and offered the same income to tax in its financial statement and return.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 80GDCIT v. Endurance Technologies Ltd.Deduction claimed under section 80G for expenditure incurred on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) was allowed, as there is no specific restriction for claiming section 80G deduction out of CSR expenditure.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 80-ICDCIT v. Endurance Technologies Ltd.Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in allowing a deduction claim under section 80-IC at the appellate stage, even though the assessee failed to make the claim in the original or revised return. Appellate authority can entertain a new claim.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 145J N Tekrawala Construstion Ltd. v. Income-tax OfficerAssessing Officer was not justified in estimating income at 8% when the assessee, a civil construction business, consistently followed the well-recognized project completion method of accounting for contract receipts.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 148AMallesh Goud Donkeni v. Income-tax OfficerProceedings under section 148A read with section 148 (income escaping assessment) ought to be issued and proceeded in a faceless manner as per the Finance Act, 2021 amendments.Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 194CInternational Green Scapes Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxEDC payments by the assessee to HUDA for civil development works were contractual charges and would fall under section 194C (TDS on contractors/sub-contractors), not section 194I (TDS on rent).Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961
Section 194CInternational Green Scapes Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxCommissioner (TDS) was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 to apply section 194C when the appeal against the original order (applying section 194I) was already pending before the Commissioner (Appeals).Click HereIncome-Tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT Income Tax Case Law 03.10.2025