IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 10.11.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Sec 4 | Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. ITO | Grants/contributions received from State Government by an infrastructure company for BOT road projects are a capital contribution towards project cost, not income. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 10(10AA) | Sunil Kumar Bhilare v. Income-tax Officer | Matter regarding leave encashment exemption was remanded for fresh adjudication considering the enhanced exemption limit notified by CBDT Circular No. 31/2023. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 12A | Shamkris Charity Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) | CIT(E) was directed to consider the application for final registration on merits, as the approach to condone the delay in filing the application should be equitable, balanced, and judicious. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 12AB (Para 1) | Shamkris Charity Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) | Mere existence of an object permitting the application of income outside India does not constitute a “specified violation” under the Explanation to Section 12AB(4). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 12AB (Para 2) | CMR Educational Society v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Cancellation of registration of an educational society under Section 12AB(4) was not justified when based merely on suspicion of collecting capitation fee/diversion of cash, especially when explanations were provided and substantive assessment on cash was made in trustees’ hands. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 36(1)(vii) | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. | Provision for bad and doubtful debts and advances adjusted from respective assets is an allowable deduction, even if no deduction was claimed in the return. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 37(1) (Para 1) | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. | Expenditure incurred for purchase and upgradation of application software is to be allowed as revenue expenditure. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 37(1) (Para 2) | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. | Expenditure incurred on purchases of dyes and moulds by an automobile company is to be allowed as revenue expenditure. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 37(1) (Para 3) | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. | Claim for deduction of income tax paid in Chile, made for the first time, must be examined and verified by the AO in accordance with the law. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 37(1) (Para 4) | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. | Deduction of written-off premium on leasehold land debited to P&L account is allowable where the revenue failed to bring contrary material to precedents in the assessee’s own case. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 37(1) (Para 5) | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. | Expenditure incurred for purchase of jigs and fixtures is to be allowed as revenue expenditure, considering their short life/minimal wear and tear in a large automobile factory. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 54 | Income-tax Officer v. Neelam Shamsher Kashyap | Deduction under Section 54 for investment in a new residential house cannot be restricted to 50% merely because of joint ownership with a son-in-law; it is allowed to the extent of the assessee’s actual investment. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 55 | Income-tax Officer v. Neelam Shamsher Kashyap | Adoption of a lower ready reckoner rate by the AO was unjustified when the assessee computed LTCG by adopting FMV as on 01.04.2001 supported by a registered valuer’s report and Stamp Valuation Authority’s certificate. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 68 | Anandmangal Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer | Addition under Section 68 was unjustified for an unsecured loan treated as a cash credit in reassessment, when the amount was merely a carried forward balance from a prior year and already accepted previously. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 69C | Vedanta Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi | Matter was remanded for reconsideration as the subsequent closure of the main ITC issue by the GST department would directly impact the reassessment based on the allegation of availment of bogus ITC. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 80G (Para 1) | Jayshree Gopallalji Haveli Charitable Trust-Ujalvav v. Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption) | Approval under Section 80G cannot be denied solely on the ground that certain objects appear religious without verifying if religious expenditure exceeded the 5% limit under Section 80G(5B). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 80G (Para 2) | Nilesh Kulkarni Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) | Rejection of an application for regularisation of 80G approval solely for citing the wrong clause was improper, and an opportunity to rectify or suo motu consideration under the correct clause should have been provided. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 92C | SP Armada Oil Exploration (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | No Transfer Pricing adjustment was warranted as the international transaction (bareboat charter hire from AE) resulted in an Arm’s Length Outcome, even after imputing a commission on the charter fees. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 145 | Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer | Where a toll contractor recognised net consideration (gross receipts less estimated maintenance) as income, the AO was not right in taxing gross income and ignoring estimated maintenance costs. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 147 (Para 1) | Doulat Jain v. DCIT | An assessment order passed without quoting the DIN (Document Identification Number) in its body is invalid and deemed never to have been issued, as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 147 (Para 2) | Rupam Jewellery v. Union of India | A writ petition challenging a reopening notice became infructuous and was dismissed as the final assessment was completed and remained unchallenged, and the notice copy was not annexed to the petition. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 147 (Para 3) | Yukti Export v. Income-tax Officer | Both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 153 | Open Text Corporation India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | An order passed ten years after the Tribunal’s remand order for a TP issue was barred by time as per the timeline prescribed under Section 153(2A) or Section 153(3). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 194Q | Rajkamal Agro Industries v. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi | An assessment order passed without considering the assessee’s detailed reply regarding high sea purchases and TDS under Section 194Q was quashed and remanded for a fresh de novo order. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 234C | SP Armada Oil Exploration (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Interest under Section 234C is to be computed on the returned income filed by the assessee, instead of the assessed income. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 251 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. | The Appellate Authority can entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if it was not made in the original return of income or a revised return. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Sec 276C | G Square Layout (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | The continuation of prosecution under Section 276C(2) (failure to pay admitted tax) was deemed a futile exercise and an abuse of process where the company had filed a belated return but subsequently paid the entire tax liability after the show-cause notice. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 09.11.2025