IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 23.01.2026

Relevant Act	Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation
PBPT Act, 1988	Section 24 (Attachment)	Balkar Singh v. Initiating Officer	[No Substitution of Property] While confirming a provisional attachment order, the Initiating Officer cannot substitute the originally attached property with a different one. Section 24(4) permits only “continuance” of the existing attachment, not modification.	Click Here
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 43CB	DCIT v. Anushka Estates	[Revenue Recognition] A real estate company holding land as stock-in-trade and following the Project Completion Method (PCM) cannot be compelled by the AO to switch to the Percentage Completion Method (POCM) merely because the developer uses POCM. Consistent accounting methods must be respected.	Click Here
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 68 (Cash Credit)	Priyanka Lalitkumar Raizada v. DCIT	[Inherited Jewellery Sale] Sale proceeds of inherited jewellery cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit (Section 68) merely due to the absence of a purchase bill or Will, provided the transaction is through banking channels, supported by a valuation report and affidavit.	Click Here
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 80G (CSR)	Plant Lipids (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	[CSR Donations Eligible] The mandatory nature of CSR expenditure does not disqualify it from Section 80G deduction. If the donation meets 80G conditions, the deduction is allowable even if claimed as CSR.	Click Here
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 151A	Charoen Pokphand Seeds India v. DCIT	[JAO Notice Quashed] Reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after the implementation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme (Section 151A) are without authority. Only a Faceless AO can issue such notices.	Click Here
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 205 (TDS Bar)	Ashish Ranjan v. ITO	[Employee Protection] If an employer deducts TDS from salary but fails to deposit it (due to liquidation), the employee cannot be held liable for the tax demand. The Revenue must recover it from the employer, not the deductee.	Click Here
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 199 (TDS Credit)	Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. DCIT	[Wrong Name Credit] TDS credit cannot be denied to a firm merely because clients inadvertently deposited tax in the name of its sister concern, provided the income is offered by the firm and no double benefit is claimed.	Click Here

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 22.01.2026