IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 30.10.25

By | October 31, 2025
0 Comment

IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 30.10.25

SectionCase Law TitleBrief SummaryCitationRelevant Act
S 2(15)Endocrine and Breast Surgery Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, ExemptionsAssessee-society’s activities (seminars/meetings, receiving donations from pharma companies and fees from doctors) were found to have a direct nexus with promotions for pharma companies and a hospital rather than benefiting the general public. Thus, its activities were not for ‘charitable purposes’.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
S 12PSR Sustainability Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption)Where registration application under $\S 12\{A}(1)(\{ac})({iii} was rejected for non-compliance, the Commissioner (Exemption) was directed to give the assessee an opportunity to file a correct application (as wrong section code was used) and then decide on merits.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
S 17Suhas Jagannath Kanase v. Income-tax officer, National e Assessment Centre, Delhi.Following a previous Tribunal decision, the matter regarding the taxability of ex-gratia payment received by the assessee upon resignation was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
S 28Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACITWhere assessee recognized assets in their books, they became business assets, and thus, the corresponding liability arising from the business was to be brought to tax under $\S 28Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
S 32Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACITFollowing a decision for the assessee’s group company, depreciation under $\S 32 was allowed on capitalized 3G spectrum fees as an intangible asset, contrary to the Assessing Officer’s view of amortization under $\S 35Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
s 35\Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACITLicense fees paid by a telecom operator were held to be capital in nature and required to be amortized in accordance with $\S 35Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 37Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACITLease payments (operating or finance lease) are considered revenue expenditure and allowable.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 37Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACITPenalty paid to the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) for non-compliance with terms of the license agreement was allowable under $\S 37(1).Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 37Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACITAsset Restoration Cost (ARC) for restoring leased sites, being a contractual liability, was held to be a legitimate liability, either capitalizable for depreciation or deductible underClick HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 37(1)Balajee Infratech & Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxRoyalty paid to a Power of Attorney holder authorized by the landowner for excavation of stones/boulders (paid through banking channels with TDS compliance) was allowable as a deduction; reopening based merely on a change of opinion was invalid.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 40Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACITPayment of roaming charges by a telecom operator to another mobile service provider did not attract Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) provisions.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 80\Endocrine and Breast Surgery Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, ExemptionsFor obtaining approval under $\S 80\text{G}(5)$, the assessee must first secure registration under $\S 12Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 92Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACITFollowing co-ordinate bench decisions, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was directed to delete the adjustment made to royalty payment for trademark use, as the assessee had benchmarked the transaction correctly.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 115\Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACITWrite-off of the unamortized balance of Passive Infrastructure (PI) assets (following a merger and to align accounting policies with AS-14) did not fall under any adjustment clauses of Explanation 1 to $\S 115\text{JB}$; hence, the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) adjustment was invalid.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 144Hasmukh Nanalal Parekh v. Union of IndiaFailure to grant an opportunity for personal hearing and adjournment request to a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) assessee before passing a reassessment order in a faceless assessment rendered the reassessment order liable to be quashed.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 144\Vijay Thakkar v. National Faceless Assessment CentreWhere the final assessment order was passed without considering the assessee’s reply and supporting documents to the show-cause notice-cum-draft assessment order, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 151Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Agroha Fincap Ltd.The sanction granted by the Competent Authority using the language, “Yes, I am convinced it is a fit case for reopening of assessment under $\S 147$ by issuing notice under $\S 148$,” was held to satisfy the mandate of $\S 151$.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 194\text{H}$Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACITDiscount given to prepaid SIM card distributors was a trade discount, not commission under $\S 194 hence no TDS obligation arose.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961
$\S 220$Court on its Own Motion v. Anuradha MisraContempt proceedings were dropped where the Principal Commissioner rejected the stay application with brief but reasoned order, directing a 20 percent deposit of demand, as there was no wilful disobedience of the earlier court order.Click HereIncome-tax Act, 1961

For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAW 29.10.2025