IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 07.06.2025

SECTION	CASE LAW TITLE	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
2(15)	Kalanjiam Development Financial Services v. Income-tax Officer (Exemptions)	Where the main objective of a trust is microfinance (lending operation), it is its main business and not incidental to a charitable object; hence, the trust cannot claim exemption u/s 11.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
10(38)	Sangita Ben Mardia v. Income-tax Officer	Reopening of assessment was unjustified where the assessee proved to be a genuine investor who earned LTCG on shares through a registered broker, and not through accommodation entries.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
11	Sai Shiva Educational Trust v. Income-tax Officer (Exemp)-2(3), Mumbai	An advance given by a trust to a party for the use of its property to carry out the trust’s objects is not a violation of section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d), and exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
11	Sai Shiva Educational Trust v. Income-tax Officer (Exemp)-2(3), Mumbai	Based on a similar issue in prior years where advances were held to be for acquiring land for an educational building, the AO was directed to re-verify the facts for the current year.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
11	Suigam Khodadhor Panjara Pole v. Assistant Director of Income-tax	The claim for application of income cannot be denied solely because Form 10B was not filed with the income tax return, provided it was submitted before the assessment order/intimation u/s 143(1) was issued.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
14A	Super Crop Safe Ltd. v. A.C.I.T.	AO was not justified in allocating finance cost towards agricultural activity as the assessee already had sufficient surplus funds from agricultural activity, past accumulations, and share premium.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
14A	Super Crop Safe Ltd. v. A.C.I.T.	The matter was remanded to the AO to verify which assets were actually deployed for agricultural operations and then disallow depreciation only on those assets.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
14A	Super Crop Safe Ltd. v. A.C.I.T.	The matter was remanded to the AO to verify which common/indirect expenses actually had a connection with agricultural operations before allocating them.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
14A	Super Crop Safe Ltd. v. A.C.I.T.	The AO’s allocation of employee benefit expenses on a proportionate basis was upheld, as the specialized and labor-intensive agricultural activity could not have been carried out with only 8 employees.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
22	Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax v. Raghuleela Estates (P.) Ltd.	Common area maintenance charges received from tenants for maintaining common areas (lift, security etc.) and not the leased area itself are to be treated as business income, not income from house property.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
24	Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax v. Raghuleela Estates (P.) Ltd.	Interest paid on a new loan taken from a bank to repay a previous loan used for investing in properties is allowable as a deduction under section 24(b).	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
24	Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax v. Raghuleela Estates (P.) Ltd.	Interest incurred during the pre-construction period must be allowed as a deduction, even if part of the borrowed funds utilized for property acquisition was later refunded.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
28(i)	Anantula Vijay Mohan v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	An assessment order was set aside because the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by inquiring into issues (like treating capital loss as business loss) which were beyond the scope of a limited scrutiny.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
40(a)(i)	Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer	Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) made by CPC was deleted because the AO, in scrutiny, had already examined the payment to a foreign company for certification fees and accepted it was not taxable in India.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
43B	Yes Bank Ltd. v. Additional commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)	Payment towards a gratuity fund made after the tax audit report but before the extended due date for filing the return of income qualifies for deduction under section 43B.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
56	Saggar Parimmal v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 42(1)(5)	The amendment by Finance Act, 2020, increasing the permissible tolerance limit between declared value and stamp duty value to 10% u/s 56(2)(x)(b)(B) is retrospectively applicable.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
68	Income-tax Officer-3(1) Raipur v. Shilphy Steels (P.) Ltd.	A revisional order passed by the Principal Commissioner u/s 263 was set aside because it was passed without granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
68	Sai Shiva Educational Trust v. Income-tax Officer (Exemp)-2(3), Mumbai	Unsecured loans could not be added u/s 68 as the amounts were confirmed by creditors, the opening balance was accepted in prior years, and all transactions were through banking channels.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
68	Dy. C.I.T v. Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd.	Where there was some failure to explain the source of cash deposits during demonetization, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs under section 68 was held to be just and proper.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
68	PR. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Third Generation Traders (P.) Ltd.	An addition u/s 68 cannot be made in the hands of a shell company when the same amount has already been added in the hands of the real beneficiaries who availed the accommodation entries.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
69A	Shakti Singh v. NFAC, Delhi	To determine unexplained money u/s 69A, the peak negative cash balance should be worked out, set off against agricultural income, and only the remaining sum, if any, should be brought to tax.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
69A	Sai Shirdi Constructions v. Income-tax Officer-28(3)(1)	A reopening notice u/s 148 for AY 2008-09 was quashed because it was based on cash sales that had already been substantively added in AY 2011-12 before the notice was issued.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
70	Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund a Series of VISPLC v. ACIT (International Taxation)	There is no prohibition on the hierarchy of setting off STCL against STCG; an assessee is entitled to choose the chronology of set-off that is most beneficial.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
80G	Shree Smasta Gurjar Kshatriya Kadiya Samaj Navsari v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)	Rejection of an application for approval u/s 80G(5) was remanded for fresh consideration because no inquiry was conducted to determine if the trust had spent less than 5% of its total income on religious purposes.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
80-IA	Shital Fibers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax	Section 80-IA(9) restricts the allowability of a deduction under Chapter VI-A, but it does not affect the computation of the deduction itself.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
80JJA	Super Crop Safe Ltd. v. A.C.I.T.	A claim for deduction u/s 80JJA was remanded for verification as it was not evident from the return whether the claim was made within the prescribed period of five years from business commencement.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
90	Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund a Series of VISPLC v. ACIT (International Taxation)	Gain on transfer of ‘rights entitlement’ is not the same as a share and falls under Article 13(6) (Other gains) and not Article 13(5) (Gains from alienation of shares) of the India-Ireland DTAA.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
115BBE	Dy. C.I.T v. Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd.	The provisions of section 115BBE (higher tax rate on unexplained income) apply only to transactions undertaken on or after April 1, 2017.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
131	Pramod Swarup Agarwal v. Principal Director of Income-tax	An authorized officer who has conducted a search u/s 132(1)(i) to (v) cannot subsequently issue a notice u/s 131(1A) post-search.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
132	Pramod Swarup Agarwal v. Principal Director of Income-tax	A warrant of authorization and subsequent search operation were quashed because the satisfaction note did not contain any information referable to the conditions specified in section 132(1)(a), (b), or (c).	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
144C	Anantula Vijay Mohan v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Passing a final assessment order without first issuing a mandatory draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) is an incurable illegality, not a mere procedural error.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
148	Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax v. Raghuleela Estates (P.) Ltd.	A notice under section 148 issued in the name of a non-existing entity is null and void, and the consequent reassessment order must be quashed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
148	Sohanraj Praveen Kumar v. Addl./Jt./ Dy./ Asstt. CIT/ ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi	Reopening proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction as the notice was issued long after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed in the pre-amended section 149 (as it stood before 01-04-2021).	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
149	U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax	The issue of whether section 149(1)(c) has retrospective operation was referred to a larger bench for consideration, in light of a conflicting High Court decision and an Explanation to the section.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
244A	Samarpan Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)	An assessee is entitled to interest under section 244A on a refund granted under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, if the refund is paid belatedly.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961