IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 09.11.2025
| Type | Section/Rule | Case Law Title / Notification | Brief Summary | Citation / No. | Relevant Act |
| Notification | Section 92C(2), third proviso (read with Rule 10CA(7)) | CBDT Notification No. 157/2025 | Notifies the tolerance range for Arm’s Length Price (ALP) determination for Assessment Year 2025-26 as 1% for wholesale trading and 3% for all other cases. | notification-157-2025 | Income-Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act, 1961) |
| Case Law | Section 11 | Dinesh Surendra Kotecha v. Union of India | Assessee-trust was denied exemption under Section 11 due to a 70-day delay in filing the audit report (Form 10B). The court held that condonation was warranted to avoid genuine hardship and the order rejecting the application, based solely on a three-year CBDT Circular limit, was not justified. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 37(1) | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Remfry and Sagar | Licence fee paid by a law firm for the use of goodwill was held to be wholly and exclusively for business and thus allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1). | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 37(1) | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Remfry and Sagar | Ad hoc disallowance of 5% of travelling and entertainment expenses by the AO was deleted as no discrepancies were pointed out in the books or evidence of a personal element was produced. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 37(1) | ACIT v. Alfa Laval India (P.) Ltd. | Where the assessee consistently followed a policy of disallowing incremental provision and claiming deduction for a decrease, the reversal of earlier disallowed provisions (liquidated damages, doubtful debts) was allowable as the Revenue failed to rebut the factual findings. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 40(a)(ia) | ACIT v. Alfa Laval India (P.) Ltd. | Deletion of an addition under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified where the assessee reversed year-end provisions (on which TDS was not deducted in the earlier year) and booked the expenses upon receipt of invoices in the current year, claiming the disallowed amount in the year of allowability. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 43 | Vinil Venugopal v. DDIT (Inv.) | Imposition of penalty under Section 43 for non-disclosure of foreign assets in the return of income is not mandatory; the Assessing Officer has discretion depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. | Click Here | Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 |
| Case Law | Section 68 | Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | The addition made under Section 68 for cash sales of Rs. 9.24 crores during demonetisation was not justified as the assessee provided convincing material regarding sufficient stock, manpower, time, and the sales were shown in VAT returns accepted by VAT authorities. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 80G | Niravadya Foundation v. CIT (Exemption) | Rejection of an application for regular approval under Section 80G (in Form 10AB) solely because a provisional approval (Form 10AC) existed was contrary to law, as the statute mandates applying for regular approval after the provisional period. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 92C | ACIT v. Alfa Laval India (P.) Ltd. | The Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was rightly adopted as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) to benchmark the export of traded spares to AEs, as the Tribunal had held the same in the immediately preceding year for similar facts. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 143 | ACIT. v. Viacom 18 Media (P.) Ltd. | The assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing company (which had amalgamated and the fact was duly informed to the AO) was void and was ordered to be quashed. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 145 | ACIT v. Alfa Laval India (P.) Ltd. | An addition based on alleged non-disclosure of ICDS adjustment was unsustainable where the assessee accounted for the mark-to-market effect on forward contracts as per ICDS, disclosed the profit increase, and the balance was credited to retained earnings with reconciliation. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 148 | Diamond tmt and Procon (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer | A subsequent notice under Section 148 issued by an ITO based solely on PAN jurisdiction in the ITBA system, after the case was statutorily transferred to another location under Section 127, was without authority and was quashed. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 237 | U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. Union of India Min.of Finance Dept.of Revenue | The AO cannot deny a TDS refund solely due to a mismatch with Form 26AS if the assessee submits valid Form 16A certificates; the AO is obliged to verify the Form 16A details. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 254 | Bhagwanjibhai N. Delwadia v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | Where the Tribunal dismissed the assessee’s cross-objection due to a factual error regarding the delay (miscalculating 31 days as 8-9 months) and failed to reconsider it after a corrigendum, the Tribunal’s order was set aside for a rehearing on the merits. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
| Case Law | Section 276 | Nilesh Agarwal v. Income-tax Office (ITO) | The continuation of prosecution against the directors alone for the offence of transferring company assets to thwart tax recovery (Section 276) without impleading the company as an accused is contrary to law and an abuse of process. | Click Here | Income-Tax Act, 1961 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 06.11.25