| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Section 2(15) |
Pranab Micro Services Federation v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Registration under section 12AB was rightly rejected as the Section 8 company’s microfinance activities involved commercial elements (charging interest) and it failed to establish the absence of a profit motive or prove substantial charitable activities. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Section 10(26) |
Jennyfar Lalzarliani Hrahsel v. Union of India |
Click Here |
A revisional order under Section 264 passed without a pragmatic approach or proper inquiry into the mismatch between cash deposits and exempt income for a Mizo Tribe resident was held unsustainable and remanded for reconsideration. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Section 11 |
Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Impact Foundation (India) |
Click Here |
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 is unsustainable if the AO had already examined Form No. 10 and accumulation details before granting the exemption. The CIT(E) cannot invoke revision merely due to a difference of opinion or without confronting the assessee in the SCN. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Section 11 |
Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Impact Foundation (India) |
Click Here |
Alleged non-utilization or misapplication of accumulated income under Section 11(2) can only be brought to tax in the year immediately following the expiry of the accumulation period. Revisional disallowance in interim years is invalid. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Section 32 |
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. |
Click Here |
Goodwill arising upon the amalgamation of a running business under a High Court-approved scheme constitutes commercial rights eligible for depreciation as an ‘intangible asset’ under Section 32(1)(ii). |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Section 35 |
Mitsui Kinzoku Components India (P.) Ltd. v. Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research |
Click Here |
A writ petition against the rejection of R&D approvals is not maintainable in the Delhi High Court when the R&D unit is in Haryana, and applications were routed from there. Mere departmental presence in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Section 45 |
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kutir Navinchandra Patel |
Click Here |
Gains from genuine, delivery-based listed equity transactions held as investments are assessable under ‘Capital Gains’ and not ‘Business Income’. The mere use of unsecured loans to fund the investments does not alter this characterization. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Section 56 |
ACIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment (P.) Ltd. |
Click Here |
Relying on a DCF valuation report from a preceding year to issue shares at a premium is impermissible. The matter was remanded for a fresh valuation under Rule 11UA to determine taxability under Section 56. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Section 131 |
Koduru Picheswara Rao v. Union of India |
Click Here |
Summons issued under Section 131(1A) by the ITO (Investigation) are valid and legal where no jurisdictional defect was pleaded in the writ petition. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Section 149 |
Act-19(3) v. Sahjanand Diamonds |
Click Here |
A second notice under Section 148 issued on 24-7-2022 was held void ab initio and barred by limitation, as the surviving limitation period extended by COVID-19 relaxations expired on 1-7-2022 pursuant to the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal ruling. |
