IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 23.09.25
| SECTION | CASE LAW / CIRCULAR TITLE | Brief Summary | CITATION | RELEVANT ACT |
| Interest Waiver | CBDT waives interest on demand for disallowance of Sec. 87A rebate | The CBDT has waived interest u/s 220(2) on tax demands arising from the incorrect allowance of the Sec. 87A rebate, provided the demand is paid by 31-12-2025. | Circular No. 13/2025 | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 2(22) & 263 | Kesar Buildcon (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT | Deemed dividend can only be taxed in the shareholder’s hands, not the recipient concern. Also, an order can’t be revised u/s 263 for an issue that was outside the scope of limited scrutiny. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 10(23C) & 13 | CIT (Exemptions) v. Hamdard Laboratories (India) | Exemption u/s 10(23C) was upheld based on the rule of consistency. Providing property to trustees as part of long-term employment isn’t an “undue benefit” u/s 13. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 14A & 36(1)(iii) | DCIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. | Disallowance u/s 14A was deleted as the assessee’s own funds exceeded investments. Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) was deleted as advances to subsidiaries were for commercial expediency. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 36(1)(va), 80G, 92C, 115JB | Lowe’s Services India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | The AO was directed to delete a duplicate disallowance of employee’s PF. CSR spending was allowed as an 80G deduction. No separate addition for receivables is needed if working capital adjustment is given in TP. MAT adjustments must first be in the draft order. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 37(1) | Arvind Kumar v. PCIT | Where the genuineness of an expense is doubted but not its source, the disallowance should be made under section 37(1) and not section 69C. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 40A(2) & 40A(3) | Sonone Surgical & Ophthalmic Hospital v. ITO | Cash payments for partners’ remuneration (within limits) and employees’ salaries were allowed, as their genuineness wasn’t doubted and no single payment was proven to exceed the prescribed cash limit. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 68 | DCIT v. Naresh Laxminarayan Grover | Short-term capital gains from genuine, delivery-based share transactions on a recognized exchange cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 without contrary evidence. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 68 & 151 | DCIT v. Rudra Buildwell Homes (P.) Ltd. | An addition u/s 68 for an unsecured loan was deleted as the three conditions (identity, genuineness, creditworthiness) were met. Reopening after 3 years requires sanction from higher authorities u/s 151(ii). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 69A | Muthusamy Mudaliar Prakasam v. ACIT | Cash deposits made by a jeweller during demonetization were held to be explained based on a plausible cash flow statement and the inherent nature of the business. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 119 | VRG Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT | The rejection of an application to condone a delay in filing Form 10-IC without considering the assessee’s explanation was deemed unreasoned and remanded for fresh consideration. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 149 | Prolife Industries Ltd. v. ITO | A notice for reassessment u/s 148 was quashed as it was time-barred, having been issued after the surviving time limit calculated under the TOLA, 2020 provisions. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961; TOLA, 2020 |
| 153B | H. Srinivas Reddy v. ACIT | An assessment order was held to be time-barred because the postal evidence showed it was dispatched after the statutory limitation date had expired. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 201 | Vedanta Ltd. v. DCIT (IT) | Orders treating an assessee as ‘in default’ for non-deduction of TDS on non-resident payments were set aside as they were passed beyond the limitation period of six years. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
For more:- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 21.09.2025