INCOME TAX CASE LAW 01.08.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 2(15) | Amaltash Residents Welfare Association v. CIT(E) | Activities limited strictly to RWA members with benefits confined to a determinate group are governed by the principle of mutuality and do not qualify as “charitable.” Rejection of Sec 12AB registration upheld. | Click Here |
| Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 | Section 4 | Valsa Jose v. V.B. Chandran | Suit claiming partition based on an alleged 1963 benami transaction dismissed as an unchallenged 1970 Settlement Deed established absolute ownership, barring succession claims. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 4 | Castles Vista (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Addition of 12% notional interest on interest-free advances made under business agreements without contractual interest obligation or evidence of accrual cannot be taxed. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 9 | Bank of America v. ACIT | Though interest paid by a foreign bank’s Indian PE to overseas branches was not taxable in India, once TDS is deducted and deposited, credit or refund must be claimed by the deductee, not the deductor. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 11 | Medak Catholic Mission v. ITO | Accumulation of income under Sec 11(2) for specific revenue purposes (maintenance of priests/preachers) aligned with the trust’s objects is permissible and allowable. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 11 | Calvary Mennonite Brethren Church v. ITO(E) | Where Sec 11 exemption is denied for lack of registration, gross receipts must still be assessed on commercial principles by allowing expenditure incurred to earn those receipts. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 11 / 12A | Calvary Mennonite Brethren Church v. ITO(E) | Benefit of Sec 11 & 12 under the second proviso to Sec 12A(2) (prior to omission by Finance Act, 2023) is available for an AY if assessment proceedings were pending at the time provisional registration was granted. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 11 / 12A | Calvary Mennonite Brethren Church v. ITO(E) | Exemption under Sec 11 & 12 via the second proviso to Sec 12A(2) is unavailable for relevant AYs if no assessment proceedings were pending when provisional registration was granted. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 11 / 12 | Dignity Lifestyle Trust v. ITO | Deferred pre-operative expenses before charitable activity commencement are alien to Sec 11 & 12; however, expenses actually incurred during the year out of current income qualify as application of income. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 11(6) | Dignity Lifestyle Trust v. ITO | If actual capital expenditure incurred during the year is claimed as application of income under Sec 11, depreciation cannot be separately claimed as per Sec 11(6); remanded for factual verification. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 14A | JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. JCIT | Interest earned from lending surplus funds to overseas head office/branches is governed by the doctrine of mutuality (self-to-self) and does not constitute “income”; Sec 14A disallowance does not apply. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 14A | Bank of America v. ACIT | No Sec 14A disallowance is warranted where non-interest-bearing self-owned funds exceed investments yielding exempt income and no nexus to interest-bearing funds is shown. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 28(i) | Mukesh Gupta v. DCIT | [SLP Granted] Receipts claimed by a director as professional/technical fee treated as salary income due to lack of documentary proof of technical/professional services rendered. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 37(1) | Mukesh Gupta v. DCIT | [SLP Granted] Deduction of interest on borrowed funds advanced to a company disallowed as business expense for failure to establish business nexus or commercial expediency. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 40(a)(ia) | Castles Vista (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Disallowance for non-deduction of TDS set aside where Form 26A certifying payee tax returns was filed with a delay caused by portal technical glitches (substantial compliance with Sec 201(1)). | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 41(1) | Vimal Oil and Foods Ltd. v. ACIT | Sec 148 notice quashed where issued on a clean-slate corporate debtor under CIRP based on surmises of unpaid interest deduction without any actual P&L debit since FY 2015-16. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 44C / 36(1)(viia) | Bank of America v. ACIT | Deduction under Sec 36(1)(viia) for bad debt provisions must be allowed prior to calculating the statutory ceiling under Sec 44C for Head Office expenditure. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 44C / 37(1) | Bank of America v. ACIT | Overseas branch expenses incurred to solicit NRI deposits fall within the purview of Head Office expenditure under Sec 44C and cannot be claimed separately under Sec 37(1). | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 44C | Bank of America v. ACIT | Remanded to verify whether data processing and branch costs satisfy the “tripartite test” laid down in American Express Bank for classification under Head Office expenditure. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 48 / 54F | Smt. Nagabhushana Pamala v. ITO | Deemed consideration under a JDA must be based on Sub-Registrar circle rates instead of JDA values; Sec 54F exemption claim restored to AO for construction completion verification. | Click Here |
| Indian Succession Act, 1925 | Section 63 | Valsa Jose v. V.B. Chandran | Registered Will upheld after attesting witness testimony proved execution; alleged suspicious circumstances regarding home registration and testatrix age/health were unsubstantiated. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 68 / 149 | Pace Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. ITO | Sec 148 notice issued past 3 years based solely on third-party search material without recording specific satisfaction linking seized items to assessee is barred by limitation and void of jurisdiction. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 68 | Castles Vista (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Addition under Sec 68 deleted where the assessee produced invoices, PAN, payment details, and contact info, thereby discharging the initial burden of proof for advertisement services. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 68 / 10(38) | PCIT v. Sanjay Kumar Damjibhai Gangani | [SLP Dismissed] Sec 68 penny stock addition unsustainable where assessee provided complete documentary proof (contract notes, demat records) and revenue failed to adduce contrary evidence. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69 | Suneeta Ramesh Korgaonkar v. ITO | Sec 69 addition for alleged “on-money” cash payment in property purchase set aside as it was based on an unsigned, corroboration-lacking “dumb document” retrieved from the Insight Portal. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69A / 148 | Suneeta Ramesh Korgaonkar v. ITO | Reopening under Sec 148 based on generic search charts from a builder group uploaded on the Insight Portal, without possessing actual seized materials implicating the assessee, is bad in law. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69C / 144B | Accost Media LLP v. DCIT | Order restricting disallowance to 12.5% set aside and remanded because the High Court / ITAT failed to decide the foundational jurisdictional challenge of non-compliance with Sec 144B. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 80G / 37(1) | Standard Chartered Capital Ltd. v. DCIT | Explanation 2 to Sec 37(1) prohibits claiming CSR expenses under business head, but does not bar claiming deduction under Sec 80G if donations are made to approved eligible trusts. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 115BBE | Deepak Maratha v. Union of India | Retrospective application of higher tax/penalty rates under Sec 115BBE/271AAC (enacted post 01.04.2017) to demonetization deposits in FY 2016-17 held illegal. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 145 | Castles Vista (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Clerical entry error in wrong return column regarding ICDS inventory adjustment deleted since correcting it yielded zero impact on the final tax computation. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 148 / 135A | Dhanwanti Jain v. ITO | Pendency of Sec 143(1)/154 appeal doesn’t bar valid Sec 148 reassessment proceedings initiated on separate information obtained via Sec 135A with proper administrative approval. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 149 | ACIT v. Anil Kumar Bhikhabhai Virani | [SLP Disposed] Notifications 20/2021 & 38/2021 cannot override or extend statutory limitation periods under the proviso to Sec 149(1) for old regime AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 153C | DCIT v. Dharmesh Rameshchandra Gathani | [SLP Dismissed] Inordinate delay in recording satisfaction note (4 years post-search, 2 years post-searched person assessment) invalidates and quashes Sec 153C proceedings. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 234C | Standard Chartered Capital Ltd. v. DCIT | Challenge against interest levy under Sec 234C restored to AO for fresh factual verification and proper recomputation in accordance with law. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 244A | Standard Chartered Capital Ltd. v. DCIT | Claim of short grant of Sec 244A interest restored to AO for verification and release of due balance. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 244A | DCIT v. Sony India (P.) Ltd. | Partial refund issued before final order must be set off against interest accrued up to that date first, with the remainder credited toward principal tax refund. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 268A | PCIT v. Smita Jhawar | Departmental appeal dismissed as non-maintainable because the tax effect fell below CBDT prescribed monetary limits and no substantial question of law arose. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 271(1)(c) | Smt. Nagabhushana Pamala v. ITO | Penalty under Sec 271(1)(c) cannot survive independently when quantum additions are set aside/remanded; must be re-evaluated post quantum order implementation. | Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 271(1)(c) | Smt. Nagabhushana Pamala v. ITO | Penalty set aside and remanded to AO for fresh consideration following ITAT order setting aside LTCG additions and remanding Sec 54F exemption. | Click Here |