| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 11 | Suga Jeeva Oozhiyangal v. CIT (Exemptions) | Click Here | Exemption cannot be denied solely due to belated filing of Form 10B if the trust is otherwise entitled to relief under the law. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 11 & 12 | Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Nyas v. ITO | Click Here | Procedural lapse (omitting financial statements in Form 10B) does not justify rejection of exemption if substantive conditions are met. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 12AB / 80G | AS Ascent Welfare Society v. CIT Exemption | Click Here | Registration and 80G approval cannot be rejected merely because charitable activities have not yet commenced at the application stage. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 22 | Sumrit Impex (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit | Click Here | Rental income from leasing property must be assessed as Income from House Property, not Business Income, consistent with prior years. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 50C | Vijay Pal Singh v. Assessment Unit, NFAC | Click Here | Additions based on circle rate are invalid if the AO fails to refer the matter to DVO after the assessee disputes the valuation. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 68 | Vaishnavi Agro v. ITO | Click Here | Bogus sales treatment upheld where customers were untraceable; no substantial question of law arose for further appeal. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 144C | Hansgrohe India (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit | Click Here | Final assessment order passed without serving a draft order is vitiated and cannot be cured by remand or re-labeling. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 201 | Karnataka Grameena Bank v. ITO | Click Here | Matter remanded to allow bank to produce evidence (Form 15G/15H) to prove TDS compliance despite admitted technical defects. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 249 | Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Nyas v. ITO | Click Here | Delay in filing appeal condoned due to absence of valid DIN on the rectification order, leading to a bona fide belief of invalidity. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Sec 281B | ARL Infratech Ltd. v. DCIT | Click Here | Provisional attachment based on mere apprehension without crystallized liability is unjustified; quashed subject to 20% deposit. |
