INCOME TAX CASE LAW DIGEST 09.6.2026
INCOME TAX CASE LAW DIGEST 09.6.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 153A, Section 45(5), Section 131 | Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Lakkanna Durgappa | Click Here | Additions made on account of capital gains under Section 153A were deleted for a concluded year because no fresh incriminating material (like JDAs or occupancy certificates) was found during the search. The documents relied upon by the AO had already been disclosed by the assessee in a sworn statement under Section 131 prior to the search. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Deductions / Income Derecognition | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. | Click Here | Disallowance of a deduction claimed for derecognised income (relating to the consumer’s portion of over-achievement of minimum targets/efficiency gains) was deleted, as interest on consumer security deposits is an allowable statutory and contractual liability, not a contingent one, consistent with earlier years’ rulings. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 148A, Section 156, Section 159 | Gowthaman S vs. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | Reassessment notices and consequential proceedings issued in the name of a deceased assessee were held void ab initio and set aside. Since proceedings under Section 159 must be initiated while the assessee is alive, actions taken after death are invalid. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 144 | Income-tax Officer vs. Bharat Bhushan | Click Here | Where an Amway product trader failed to maintain books and gave incomplete responses, leading to a best-judgment assessment based on cash deposits and credit card payments, the CIT(A) acted within its powers to set aside the assessment and remit the matter back to the AO for fresh determination. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 145(3) | Vineet Agarwal vs. ACIT-2 | Click Here | For an assessee in the bullion and jewellery trade, additions for alleged bogus purchases (which were embedded in declared sales and closing stock) were restricted only to the gross profit ratio, because the books of accounts and quantitative details were accepted by the Revenue without invoking Section 145(3). |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Reassessment / Writ Jurisdiction | Ashok Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Click Here | The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition against a faceless reassessment order because the assessee’s statutory appeal was already pending before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded, directing the petitioner to approach the CIT(A) for appropriate consideration. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 115BAA, Form 10-IC | Srivatsa Encivil (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3 | Click Here | A 13-day delay in filing Form 10-IC for concessional tax benefits was condoned. The delay was due to the sudden demise of the Group Founder, which caused corporate disruption. The court ruled the lapse was procedural, bona fide, and caused no prejudice to the Revenue. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Section 64(1)(iv) | Vipin Yadav vs. Income-tax officer | Click Here | Derivative trading losses incurred by a spouse using funds gifted by the assessee must be clubbed and allowed as a set-off against the assessee’s income under Section 64(1)(iv) read with Explanation 3(i), regardless of the spouse’s independent trading choices. |