IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 06.12.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 2(14) | Khemraj Patidar v. Income-tax Officer | Land sold, being irrigated, cultivated, and situated beyond municipal limits, deserved exclusion from the definition of Capital Asset in terms of Section 2(14)(iii). Addition under Section 50C was liable to be deleted. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 4 | Balaji Powertronics v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Excise duty subsidy and interest subsidy received with the object of creating avenues for perpetual employment and accelerating industrial development is a capital receipt. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 10(23C) | Scholars Education Trust of India v. Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption) | Where alleged misapplication of society funds was much less than 15% of gross receipts, the denial of exemption under Section 10(23C) must be limited to the extent of the amounts diverted, not resulting in the overall withdrawal of the approval. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 12AB | Maitri Foundation v. CIT, Exemption | Rejection of the application for fresh registration under Section 12AB due to non-furnishing of a reply to a notice was set aside. The matter was remanded back for a fresh decision as the assessee had partly complied. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 43B | Gourav Bhargava v. Additional/Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) | Disallowance under Section 43B for outstanding bonus expenditure was not attracted, as evidence showed the payment was made to employees before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 48 (Cost of Improvement) | Vijay Lakhmichand Israni v. Income-tax Officer | Expenses on items permanently embedded to the property (fixtures, installations) are part of the cost of improvement, but costs attributable to personal effects like air conditioners are not deductible. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 48 (Cost of Acquisition) | Vijay Lakhmichand Israni v. Income-tax Officer | ‘Other charges’ paid to the builder for civil, plumbing, and electrical works were allowed as part of the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains, as they were corroborated by documents. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 48 (Expenses of Transfer) | Vijay Lakhmichand Israni v. Income-tax Officer | Deduction of expenses like air tickets, boarding, and local travel for a non-resident was disallowed as it was not clearly established that the sole and specific purpose of the visit to India was to dispose of the house. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 56 | Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) v. GTR Aluminium (P.) Ltd. | The Assessing Officer cannot reject the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method of share valuation merely based on its outcome or by substituting the NAV method, as Rule 11UA permits the DCF method. Addition under Section 56(2)(viib) deleted. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 68 | Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajiv Gupta | Reopening a case for alleged unexplained LTCG was beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, as the income that escaped assessment was substantially less than the threshold limit of $\text{Rs. 50 lakhs}$ for issuing a notice under Section 148 after a period of three years. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69A | Khemraj Patidar v. Income-tax Officer | The matter regarding unexplained bank deposits was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to properly verify the legal heir’s explanation that deposits were a cheque and cash from agricultural income. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 80G (Condonation) | Sri Ajeya Sankara Trust v. CIT (Exemption) | Rejection of the application for regular approval under Section 80G(5) due to limitation was set aside. The assessee was directed to approach the CBDT for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 80G (CBDT) | C P Reddy Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) | Where Form 10AB for regular registration under Section 80G was filed late and there is no explicit provision for condonation, the trust must approach the CBDT for condonation under Section 119(2)(b). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 80G (Eligibility) | Swami Vivekanand Suvichar Sekshanik AVM Parmarthik Nyas v. CIT (Exemption) | The assessee-trust was eligible for approval under Section 80G(5) as it had started the activity of constructing a building to be used in the future for educational and other charitable activities per its registered objectives. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 80G (Extended Limit) | Maitri Foundation v. CIT, Exemption | Rejection of the Section 80G(5) application based on delay was set aside, as the CBDT had provided an extended time limit (up to 30-6-2024) to file such an application. The application must be decided afresh. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 80-IC | MVM Industries v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax/ACIT | Expenditure on Premium CAD software was allowable as revenue expenditure since the software had a short lifespan and required continuous upgradation, thus not providing an enduring benefit. All benefits under Section 80IC were to be granted. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C | Balaji Powertronics v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | For computing the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of a manufacturing unit located in a backward area receiving excise duty and CST waivers, the operating profit margin must be computed without considering excise duty, sales tax, and income-tax. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 119 | Perks Links and Services (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax | The delay of 17 months in filing a revised return was condoned by the High Court under Section 119 due to the plausible miss of an intimation email and disruption caused by COVID-19, which was beyond the assessee’s control. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 143 | Gourav Bhargava v. Additional/Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) | The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition of $\text{Rs. 86,682}$ as the assessee had already offered and paid tax on this income in the return of income. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 148 (Natural Justice) | K.B. Raghuraman v. Income-tax Officer | The writ petition alleging non-service of notices was dismissed, as records showed all statutory notices were duly served to the email provided by the assessee. No violation of natural justice occurred, and the assessee should pursue the alternate statutory appeal remedy. | click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 148 (Faceless Assessment) | Raj Kumar v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax | Raj Kumar v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Iserv Financial and Marketing Services v. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 153A | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sobha Chand Bhansali | Where seized papers showed the assessee acted as a broker, only the brokerage income could be added as undisclosed income. The addition could not be based on a disclosure petition alone without corroborative materials. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 159 | Gowthaman S v. Income-tax Officer | Where the assessee died before the initiation of assessment proceedings and the legal representative failed to inform the IT Department about the death, the legal representative could not later argue that the assessment was invalid for lack of notice or limitation. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
For More :- IMPORTANT INCOME TAX UPDATE 05.12.2025