IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS  09.10.2025

By | October 10, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS  09.10.2025

 

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
56(2)(x)(b)Javidbhai Ahemadbhai Mansuri vs. Income-tax OfficerITAT quashed addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b) for difference between property’s purchase price and stamp duty value because the agreement and part payment were made in 2013, before the section came into force.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
80G(5), 80G(5B)Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh Jivrajpark vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) AhmedabadMatter remanded to CIT(E) for reconsideration of denial of 80G(5) approval, as the assessee-trust’s explanation regarding the inapplicability of Section 80G(5B) (religious expenditure) was not duly examined.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
Rule 6G(3), 40, 43BDeputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kopran Ltd.Additions made solely due to a typographical error in Form 3CD were deleted. Rule 6G(3) allows a revised audit report for bona fide errors, not restricted to disallowances under Section 40 and 43B.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961; Income Tax Rules, 1962
234A, 234B, 234C, 3Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Govindachary, BengaluruAssessee was justified in including interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C in the Form-3 computation as ‘tax arrear’ under the DTVSV Act, as the definition of ‘tax arrear’ encompasses disputed tax with related interest and penalty.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961; Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020
145(1)Income-tax Officer vs. Sambhav ShelterBooks of account cannot be rejected solely because of an inadvertent mistake in the tax audit report (regarding stock records/ICDS reconciliation), especially when no finding was given that the method of accounting was not regularly followed under Section 145(1).Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
Unexplained Investments/LoansPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Improve Financial Consultants (P.) Ltd.Deletion of additions for unexplained investments and loans was upheld as justified because the sources were properly explained with documented evidence (audited financials, public documents, share sale proceeds, and unsecured loans).Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
69AChinthalapudi Ramakrishna vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1Matter was remanded as the assessee filed new evidence (GST returns, sales invoices) to explain cash deposits, which were not examined by lower authorities before making the addition as unexplained money under Section 69A.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
68B & B Sharecom (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxSection 68 addition deleted as the assessee proved the genuineness of share capital by providing all relevant documents, including investor returns, affidavits, and demonstrating sufficient reserves/surplus of investor companies.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
68Annuva Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax OfficerSection 68 addition unsustainable for share application money received through banking channels, as the assessee furnished sufficient evidence to prove the investor’s identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
271A, 44AA, 10(46), 12AYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)No penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books of account could be levied on a Local Authority providing general public utility services, as Section 44AA was inapplicable to it.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
41(1)Ginni Filaments Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), AgraMatter remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication of the Section 41(1) addition (disallowed sundry creditors liability), as the assessee filed new, voluminous evidence (confirmations, invoices, bank statements of subsequent payments) that required verification.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
Unexplained ExpenditureACIT vs. ACC India (P.) Ltd.Ad-hoc addition of 50% of outstanding creditor balances was deleted because the assessee provided complete account copies, bills/invoices, and explanations for the creditors, and the addition was based on mere doubt.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
Misc. (Admitting Evidence)Sravan Kumar Neela vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxHC held that the Tribunal was justified in refusing to admit additional evidence (affidavits explaining source of seized cash) at the Tribunal stage, as the assessee had voluntarily declared the cash as income in the original return, and accepting the evidence would lead to an impermissible revision of the return.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961
Misc. (Condonation of Delay)Institute of Actuaries of India vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Exemption)High Court condoned the delay in verification of Form No. 10BB by an assessee-trust, where the delay was caused by the CA’s inadvertent error, to prevent grave hardship and denial of exemption.Click HereIncome Tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read Important Income Tax Case Law 08.10.2025