IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 24.11.2025
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| 2(15) | Give Foundation v. Joint Director of Income-tax (Exemption) | Assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11 as its activity of acting as a bridge between donors and recipients, with less than 20% retention of donations, could not be treated as trade or business. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 2(22) | Asha Burman v. ACIT, Circle 46(1) | Refundable rental security deposit received from a tenant for property actually let out could not be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). Matter remanded for fresh examination. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 22 | Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Addition for ‘Income from House Property’ was justified on an office premises where the assessee claimed use for managing investments, as there was no material to establish any organized business or professional activity. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 23 | Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Where five flats intended to be let out remained vacant due to COVID-19, the intention to let out and bona fide efforts were sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 23(1)(c). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 23 | Asha Burman v. ACIT, Circle 46(1) | Issue of determining Annual Letting Value (ALV) for a property used partly for self-occupation and partly let out was remanded back to the AO to consider only the let-out part in the determination. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 36(1)(iii) | Khandelwal Industries v. Income-tax Officer | Addition made on the ground that interest-bearing funds were mis-utilized for giving interest-free deposits was deleted as the AO’s action was based on mere guess work without proper inquiry or examination. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 37(1) | Commissioner of Income-tax v. India Cements Ltd. | Allowance of only 10% of advertisement and dealer incentive expenses was considered perverse by the High Court; the entire expenditure should have been allowed since the fact of incurring was undisputed, even though vouchers were not produced after several years. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 41(1) | Commissioner of Income-tax v. India Cements Ltd. | Where the assessee assigned its outstanding future liability of sales tax to another company for a consideration (NPV of future liability), there was no cessation of liability, and thus, Section 41(1) was not attracted. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 44AF | Mohd. Amzad v. Income-tax Officer | Assessee, a retail dealer in timber, was entitled to a refund based on Section 44AF, as this special provision meant that the requirement for compliance under Section 139(9) would not apply. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 68 | Khandelwal Industries v. Income-tax Officer | Addition of partner’s capital as unexplained cash credit was deleted as the source was explained and supported by cash flow/bank statements. Addition was violative of natural justice due to lack of inquiry by revenue. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 68 | Anju Parekh v. Income-tax Officer | Addition of share sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit was deleted because it was based solely on generalized penny-stock investigation findings without direct nexus to the assessee’s involvement. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 68 | Anju Parekh v. Income-tax Officer | Ad hoc addition for alleged commission on accommodation entry services was arbitrary and unsustainable as there was no material to show such services were rendered or payments made. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 80P | Yedapadavu Vyvasaya Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha v. Income-tax Officer | Assessee, a co-operative society doing only borrowing and lending with its members, was entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 115JA | Commissioner of Income-tax v. India Cements Ltd. | Assessee was entitled to claim the entire actual expenditure for VRS and advertisement as a deduction for MAT purposes, even if it was shown as deferred revenue in the printed financial statements for shareholders. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 145 | R.H. Agro Overseas (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Where the AO only doubted the trading segment loss but not the manufacturing segment, there was no scope for overall rejection of books of account, and thus, no scope for estimation of gross profit. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 148 | Commissioner of Income-tax v. India Cements Ltd. | Tribunal was justified in accepting the assessee’s defense that the reassessment was an invalid change of opinion under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, even while the revenue was in appeal on merits. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| 222 | J. Sekar v. Tax Recovery Officer | Once the Tribunal’s order had attained finality and the assessee had paid the entire demand, the Department could not continue recovery, and the Tax Recovery Officer must lift the attachment. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 22.11.2025