IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 08.02.2026
| Relevant Section | Case Law Title | Core Ruling / Summary | Citation |
| Section 9 | Booking.Com B.V. v. ACIT | An online accommodation platform hosted abroad, earning commission on a P2P basis without local assets or agents, does not have a Fixed Place or DAPE in India. | Click Here |
| Section 10(35) | Mukundbhai M. Patel v. ACIT | Reopening based merely on a survey of a mutual fund house, without evidence of the assessee’s involvement in sham transactions, is without jurisdiction. | Click Here |
| Section 14A | Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT | Disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income. Rule 8D(2)(iii) recomputation must only consider investments that actually yielded exempt income. | Click Here |
| Section 14A / 115JB | DCIT v. JSW Energy Ltd. | Mathematical disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added back to “Book Profits” for MAT computation under Section 115JB. | Click Here |
| Section 32 | DCIT v. JSW Energy Ltd. | Depreciation is disallowed on capitalized payments to a contractor where no actual work was done and the contractor admitted to providing accommodation entries. | Click Here |
| Section 35 | Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT | Mere approval of an in-house R&D facility is just a threshold; the AO must verify the nexus of each specific expenditure with scientific research. | Click Here |
| Section 36(1)(iii) | Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT | Interest on funds borrowed to acquire controlling interest in overseas subsidiaries (not business assets) is not allowable as business expenditure. | Click Here |
| Section 37(1) | Schindler India (P.) Ltd v. DCIT | If international transactions are covered by a binding unilateral APA, the AO cannot disallow them u/s 37(1) by questioning “need” or “benefit.” | Click Here |
| Section 43B | Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT | Provisions for post-retirement medical benefits based on actuarial valuation are not covered by Section 43B but require factual verification of liability. | Click Here |
| Section 45 | Popatrao D. Suryawanshi v. ITO | In a JDA, capital gains are computed using the market value at the time of possession (Occupancy Certificate) as the cost of acquisition for the owner. | Click Here |
| Section 54 | Sanjay Gopaldas Bajaj v. ITO | Assessees can claim Section 54 deduction in a return filed in response to a Section 148 notice, even if no original return was filed u/s 139(1). | Click Here |
| Section 61 / 63 | ITO v. Arcil Retail Loan Portfolio | A securitisation trust under SARFAESI is a revocable trust; income is taxable in the hands of receipt holders, not the trust/AOP. | Click Here |
| Section 68 / 69A | Anshu Sahai (HUF) v. ACIT | Additions based solely on a third-party Excel sheet or diary notings, without corroborative evidence or a cash trail, cannot be sustained. | Click Here |
| Section 142(2A) | Sanjay Nathalal Shah v. ACIT | A Special Audit order issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the approval process is invalid and non-est in law. | Click Here |
| Section 199 | Hasbro SA v. DCIT | TDS credit should be allowed in the year income is offered, even if the TDS reflects in the 26AS of the next year, provided no double claim is made. | Click Here |
| Section 270AA | Amalgam Steel (P) Ltd v. ACIT | Rejection of a penalty immunity application without a reasoned order or considering the assessee’s plea is a violation of natural justice. | Click Here |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 07.02.2026