IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 12.11.2025
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 2(15) – Charitable Purpose | ITO, Exemptions v. Chembur Gymkhana | Charitable trust providing sports facilities and charging differential rates needs re-examination of Sec 2(15) proviso applicability (Advancement of any other object of general public utility) in light of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (SC) ruling, requiring de novo assessment. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 12AB – Registration Procedure | Maharishi Markendeya Sushrut Sewa Sansthan v. CIT (Exemption) | Application for fresh registration was rejected on technical grounds. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits with a proper opportunity of hearing, and provisional registration shall remain valid until the decision. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 28(i) – Business Income | PCIT v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. | Interest earned by electricity distribution company on staff loans, advances, and fixed deposits is directly related to its business and is to be treated as ‘Business Income,’ not ‘Income from Other Sources.’ | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 32 – Depreciation | DCIT v. Glaxosmithkline Consumer (P.) Ltd. | Assessee was entitled to 100% depreciation on the portion of consideration paid in a slump sale classified as goodwill, as the assets were put to use for over 180 days and the transferor did not claim depreciation. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 32 – Depreciation | ACIT v. Viacom 18 Media (P.) Ltd. | Issue regarding depreciation rate (25% vs 15%) on film software library (intangible asset) needs re-examination in the context of the parent company’s original case from AY 2007-08. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 32 – Depreciation | ACIT v. Viacom 18 Media (P.) Ltd. | Claim for depreciation on non-compete fees received after demerger was remanded back for re-examination, considering the context of the claim/stake holding and the need for the fee under relevant law. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 32 – Depreciation | Akorn India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Non-compete fee paid to promoters of a transferor company does not constitute a depreciable intangible asset under Sec 32; depreciation claim disallowed. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 37(1) – Business Expenditure | ACIT v. Viacom 18 Media (P.) Ltd. | Expenses incurred by a television broadcaster on account of cost of production of TV serials and programmes are to be allowed as revenue expenditure. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 40(a)(ia) – Disallowance – TDS | PCIT v. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. | SLP dismissed: Where assessee deducted TDS under Sec 194J on part payment of advertisement/legal/professional fees and had a lower withholding tax certificate, the Tribunal was right to quash the order passed under Sec 263. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 50B – Slump Sale – Cost | Akorn India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Where AO denied depreciation on goodwill and substituted stamp duty values for land/building under Sec 50C without DVO reference, the proper approach is to refer valuation to DVO and, based on FMV, attribute the remaining portion to goodwill and allow depreciation. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 69A – Unexplained Moneys | Spandana Sphoorty Financial Ltd. v. ACIT | Explanation for large cash deposits (including SBNs) during demonetization as loan repayments from women borrowers, supported by records, cannot be rejected solely due to SBNs withdrawal. Remanded for AO to carry out necessary verifications as per CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 69C – Unexplained Expenditure | Arham Star v. ITO | Where the assessee (diamond trader) provided proof of purchase, payment, and export documents correlating disputed purchases with non-doubted export sales, the entire purchases could not be disallowed; only the profit element related to disputed purchases could be added to income. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 80G – Deduction – Donations | CIT (Exemption) v. Dignity Education Society | SLP dismissed: Society running a college with existing Sec 12AA registration deserved approval under Sec 80G(5), despite generating surplus from student fees, as its charitable status was already recognized. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 115BAA – Lower Tax Rate | Sarla Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT | SLP dismissed: Assessee cannot be allowed to revise its return and file Form 10-IC after the due date for filing the return under Sec 139(1) to avail the benefit of lower taxation under Sec 115BAA. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 132 – Search and Seizure | CIT v. Vijay Goel | SLP dismissed: Where Revenue did not have a satisfaction note for the issuance and authorisation of a search warrant under Sec 132(1), no further proceedings would survive. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 145 – Method of Accounting | Spandana Sphoorty Financial Ltd. v. ACIT | NBFC’s change in accounting policy for ancillary borrowing costs and loan processing fees as per binding RBI clarification must be respected; AO cannot disregard the revised method which complied with Accounting Standards under the accrual system. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 148 – Income Escaping Assessment | Karnataka Co Operative Sheep and Goat Rearers Societies Federation Ltd. v. ITO | Reopening notice issued by the jurisdictional AO outside the scope of Sec 151-A stands obliterated, and all further proceedings initiated must be quashed. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 149 – Time Limit for Notice | Verjinia Foods Ltd. v. ITO | Reassessment proceedings must be dropped for a Sec 148 notice issued on 5-4-2022 (after 1-4-2021) in view of the concession made by Additional Solicitor General before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 151 – Sanction for Notice | ACIT International Taxation v. LinkedIn Singapore Pte. Ltd. | SLP dismissed: Approval for reassessment initiation granted by Commissioner after 3 years from the end of the relevant AY should have been granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner; thus, the Sec 148A(d) order and Sec 148 notice were quashed. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 159 – Legal Representatives | Lalita Agarwal v. ACIT | Reopening notice under Sec 148 and subsequent assessment orders framed in the name of the deceased assessee (father) after the department was informed of the death were unjustified and quashed. | Click Here |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 11.11.2025