IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 29.09.2025

SECTION	CASE LAW TITLE	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Sec. 10(10A)(ii)	Arun Dhir vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	A lump sum payment received on cessation of service qualifies for pension exemption, as the benefit isn’t restricted only to superannuation/retirement.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
–	Goldman Sachs (India) Finance (P.) Ltd. vs. Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department	Matter remanded to AO for fresh examination of occupancy expenses, as the assessee needed more time to collate supporting documents from its group entity.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
Sec. 54F	Rajni Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 3 (1)	Deduction allowed as the delay in constructing a new house was due to reasons beyond the assessee’s control, and the amount was subsequently invested in another property.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
Sec. 148A, 148, 151A	Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Reassessment notices issued physically after 29-03-2022 were quashed as they violated the mandatory faceless procedure under section 151A.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
Sec. 40(a)(ia), 194H	Vodafone Idea Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	The AO was directed to verify the assessee’s claim of having paid TDS on discounts to distributors and to allow the deduction on a payment basis.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
–	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Golden Tulip Hospitality (P.) Ltd.	A rectification application by the revenue seeking to reopen an entire adjudication was held to be not maintainable by the Tribunal.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
Sec. 12AA	ICG-IISU Alumnae Association-bandhan vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)	An alumni association works for the public benefit, not just for its members, and demanding mobile numbers of beneficiaries is not a valid test of genuineness for registration.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
Sec. 92B	L’Oreal India (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	AMP expenses incurred exclusively for business in India, with no benefit to Associated Enterprises (AEs), cannot be treated as an international transaction.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
Sec. 194D	Bhavesh Karamshi Thakkar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Referral commission paid by an insurance agent to non-agents for procuring customers is not liable for TDS under section 194D.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
Sec. 153A	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hardcastle Restaurants (P.) Ltd.	Additions made in a section 153A assessment are beyond jurisdiction and must be quashed if they are not based on any incriminating material found during the search.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
Sec. 54F	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Syama Reddy Mali Reddy	Deduction is available even if the legal title of the new house is transferred after two years, provided the investment was made before filing the return.	Click Here	Income Tax Act
Sec. 56(2)(x), 270A	Narayanbhai Shivabhai Patel vs. Income-tax Officer	Additions made under the deeming provisions of Sec. 56(2)(x) cannot be considered as “underreporting of income” for levying a penalty under Sec. 270A.	Click Here	Income Tax Act

For More:- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 28.09.2025