IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 14.11.2025

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
35 (Notification)	Income Tax Notification No. 04/2025	CBDT approved Hari Shankar Singhania Elastomer & Tyre Research Institute for ‘Scientific Research’ purposes under section 35(1)(iia) for AYs 2022-23 to 2026-27.	NOTIFICATION NO. 04/2025, DATED 11-11-2025	Income-tax Act, 1961
2(9)	Lal Mohammad Molla v. Initiating Officer, BPU	Where the appellant failed to prove the source of consideration for two property purchases (one involving unproved agricultural income cash and the other unexplained cash routed through a bank), both transactions qualified as ‘benami’ under section 2(9)(D), justifying the attachment orders.	Click Here	Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
2(47)	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Rao Parachuri	No ‘transfer’ under section 2(47)(v) occurred in A.Y. 2013-14 regarding a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), as the JDA was unregistered and crucial statutory approvals were obtained by the developer only in A.Y. 2014-15.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
11	Bible Fellowship Centre Wagholi v. Income Tax Officer	The delay in furnishing Form No. 10B (for claiming application of income) is directory in nature, and the claim for application of income under section 11(1)(a) should be allowed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
11	Bible Fellowship Centre Wagholi v. Income Tax Officer	Delay in filing Form No. 9A (for deemed application of income) should be condoned in the interest of justice if filed belatedly but before the conclusion of appellate proceedings.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
11	International Resources for Fairer Trade v. Union of India	Delay in filing and verifying Form No. 10B was condoned due to a genuine dependence on the CA and a history of timely filings in prior years.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
36(1)(iii)	DCIT v. Bright Build tech (P.) Ltd.	Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) for interest-free advances was deleted because the advances were made out of commercial expediency and the assessee ultimately offered excess interest income against the notional interest expenditure claimed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
50B	Sterling Farm Research and Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax	The exercise of revisionary power under section 263 was justified where the original assessment order, treating the sale of a division as a slump sale, failed to examine whether the transaction should be taxed under section 50B or section 50 (short-term capital gains).	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
69A	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Niru Dhiren Shah	Addition under section 69A (unexplained money) based only on a WhatsApp chat and an Excel sheet with rough value workings, without any corroborative evidence of receiving extra cash, was based on conjecture and deleted.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
144C	American megatrends International India (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Income-tax Department Ministry of Finance Government of India, New Delhi	Where the assessee filed DRP objections timely but failed to furnish a copy to the Assessing Officer (AO), the final assessment order passed by the AO (who hadn’t received them) was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh order after the DRP considers the objections.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
148A	Income-tax Officer v. Onir Infraspace (P.) Ltd.	Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, upholding that the AO’s notice under section 148A(b), issued solely for verification of the source and creditworthiness of loans to a newly incorporated company, was not in accordance with section 148A and thus failed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
153	Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Believe Constructions (P.) Ltd.	The competent authority’s approval for multiple draft assessment orders through a single consolidated letter with generic directions (not referencing seized material or records) was not valid approval.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
199	Naik Naik and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax-Appeal	A law firm receiving payments net of TDS can be allowed credit for TDS when offering the entire gross receipts to tax, even if the deduction does not appear in Form No. 26AS.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
220	Karnal Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax	When the original demand was set aside and a refund was paid, the original notice under section 156 became infructuous, and interest liability only commenced from the expiry of one month following the fresh notice under section 156 issued after the Tribunal’s order.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
234B & 234C	Naik Naik and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax-Appeal	Where the tax liability was fully met through TDS, there was no default in advance tax payment, and therefore, interest under sections 234B and 234C would not be applicable.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 13.11.2025