IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 06.11.25
Here is the requested information formatted in a table.
| SECTION | CASE LAW TITLE | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 10(23C) | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Shivaji Nagar | An autonomous examination board that had approval under section 10(23C)(iv) was entitled to the exemption, even if it inadvertently claimed it under section 10(46) instead. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 10(20) | Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Mukund Bhavan Trust | A major port trust was held to be entitled to assessment as a ‘Local Authority’ despite the Explanation in section 10(20) which excludes port trusts. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 11 | Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Mukund Bhavan Trust | Where a trust registered u/s 12A (since 1930) was assessed as an AOP, its status as a trust was upheld because the facts were unchanged from previous years where its status had been consistently accepted. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 11 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative Building | For a trust duly registered under section 12A, the late filing of its audit report does not disentitle it from the benefits and exemption under section 11. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 11 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative Building | If income from a prior period is brought to tax in the current year, the expenses related to that prior period must also be set off against it, and only the net income can be taxed. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 11 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative Building | When a charitable trust is entitled to exemption under section 11, any capital expenditure it incurs must be treated as an application of income for the trust’s objects. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 11 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative Building | If an assessee is granted the benefit of section 11 exemption, expenditures for gratuity funds and superannuation funds must be allowed as an application of income. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative Building | Where a trust on a cash accounting system claimed interest on loans, these expenses (not booked earlier) couldn’t be deemed “prior period expenses.” Thus, disallowance u/s 14A was unjustified. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 54F | Siddharth Bhasker Shah v. Principle Commissioner of Income-tax | An assessee claimed section 54F deduction for investing in one triplex flat (which the AO accepted). Revisionary proceedings based on the ground that it was six flats converted into one were not justified. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 72 | Sysco Industries Ltd. v. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes | A company in CIRP during Covid-19, which filed returns late due to NCLT suspension and IRP failure, demonstrated ‘genuine hardship.’ The delay was condoned to allow carry forward of losses. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 74 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative Building | An assessee could not claim a loss during the assessment year 2004-05 for assets that were actually sold in the financial year 1999-2000. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 115BAA | ACIT v. Magik Kraft (P.) Ltd. | An assessee who inadvertently filed Form 10-IB instead of Form 10-IC (for the concessional tax rate) but rectified the technical error and met all substantive conditions, was entitled to the benefit. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 145 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative Building | For an assessee using the mercantile system, wharfage income that accrued in the previous year relevant to AY 2003-04 must be taxed in AY 2003-04 itself. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 145 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative Building | For an assessee using the mercantile system, income from environment monitoring charges that accrued in the previous year was correctly included as income for that year. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 149 | Manisha Agarwal v. Income-tax Officer | For AY 2014-15, where the notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 8-6-2021, the time limit for the subsequent notice u/s 148 expired on 8-7-2022. A notice issued on 25-7-2022 was barred by limitation. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 149 | Sarthak Gupta v. Income-tax Officer | Citing the Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (SC) decision, notices issued u/s 148 on or after 01-04-2021 for AY 2015-16 were liable to be dropped (as they didn’t fall within the TOLA period). | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
| Section 250 | G Lalanatha Reddy v. Asst Commissioner of Income-tax | Where the DGIT (Investigation) transferred pending appeals away from Commissioner (Appeals)-11, any subsequent orders passed by that Commissioner were illegal and without jurisdiction. | Click Here | INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 04.11.2025