IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 27.12.2025
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title / Press Release | Brief Summary | Citation / Source |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Press Release (Compliance) | CBDT NUDGE Campaign for AY 2025-26 | CBDT has identified cases of bogus donations to RUPPs and ineligible deductions via risk analytics. Taxpayers are “nudged” to file revised returns by 31 December 2025 to avoid scrutiny or penalties. | CBDT Press Release, 23-12-2025 |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 2(15) | Indus Entrepreneurs v. DCIT (Exemptions) | Nurturing entrepreneurship via educational and mentoring activities falls under “Advancement of any other object of GPU”. Exemption under S. 11 is allowed if business-like receipts stay within the 20% threshold. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 12AA | D.Y.Patil Education Society v. CIT(Central) | Rejection of registration based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations of capitation fees and fund diversion, without adverse findings on the trust’s charitable objects, is unsustainable. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 36(1)(iii) / 37(1) | Bengal Omnitech Nirman Ltd. v. ACIT/ITO | Interest paid to property purchasers while refunding booking advances (due to non-delivery of flats) is an admissible business expense and serves a clear business purpose. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 36(1)(vii) | Bengal Omnitech Nirman Ltd. v. ACIT/ITO | Money advanced for project materials that becomes irrecoverable is a trading loss allowable as a business loss, even if no project income was recognized that year. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69 | DCIT v. Malvinder Mohan Singh | Share investments in the names of minor daughters disclosed in Schedule FA cannot be treated as unexplained if bank details are provided and the returned income is sufficient to cover the source. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69A | Amit Jatia v. ACIT | Addition for alleged cash payment for jewellery based solely on a third-party employee’s statement (without corroborative material) is based on conjecture and liable to be deleted. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 70 | Florida Retirement System v. ACIT (IT) | Section 70 provides no hierarchy for set-off. Short-term capital loss can first be set off against non-STT gains (taxed at 30%) and then against STT gains (taxed at 15%) to benefit the taxpayer. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 80G | Sanand Nyas v. CIT (Exemption) | Application for final approval filed within the extended CBDT timeline is valid. Absence of a dissolution clause in the deed isn’t fatal if a resolution for asset utilization upon dissolution exists. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 119(2)(b) | Sanjay Khurana v. Income-tax Department | Delay of nine months in filing a revised return was not condoned as no “genuine hardship” was shown. A taxpayer with high positions (e.g., Hospital Trust President) is presumed to have sufficient tax knowledge. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 159 | Dasari Sai Annapurna v. ACIT | Reassessment order passed in the name of a deceased person despite the AO being informed of the death is a nullity. The assessment must be reframed by impleading the legal representatives. | Click Here |
For More :- IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 20.12.2025