INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 09.09.2026
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 2(15) | Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Gujarat Housing Board | Where Gujarat Housing Board claimed exemption under sections 11 and 12, proviso to section 2(15) read with section 13(8) was not applicable and assessee was entitled to benefit of sections 11 and 12. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 4 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. BSE Investors Protection Fund | Where assessee, Investor Protection Fund trust registered under section 12A, held auction proceeds and interest in a separate account as per SEBI directions, acted only as fiduciary without beneficial ownership, and redeposited any refund or TDS credit, such interest income could not be assessed as assessee’s income, applying principle of real income. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 10(23EA) | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. BSE Investors Protection Fund | Where assessee, Investor Protection Fund registered under section 12A, claimed exemption under section 10(23EA) for eligible contributions and exemption under section 11 for its other income, such simultaneous claims were permissible prior to amendment to section 11(7) and corpus donations from BSE and its members were capital receipts exempt under section 11(1)(d) for relevant years. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 10A | RBS Services India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Where unbilled revenue was included in total turnover but excluded from export turnover for computation of deduction under section 10A, matter was to be restored to file of Assessing Officer/TPO to consider assessee’s alternate contention that, if unbilled revenue was included in total turnover, same should also be included in export turnover. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 11 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. BSE Investors Protection Fund | Where trust deed of assessee provided that, upon winding up or dissolution, remaining fund balances would be transferred to SEBI for specified investor purposes and not revert to stock exchange or its members, such arrangement satisfied statutory requirement of irrevocability to qualify for exemption under relevant income-tax provisions. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 12A | D Y Patil Innovation Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) | Where assessee-trust holding provisional registration under section 12AB granted on 27.02.2024 filed Form 10AB on 27.09.2025 for regular registration and section 80G approval, but CIT(E) rejected applications as time-barred under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) by treating date of provisional registration itself as date of commencement of activities, despite trust’s contention that it had only incurred preliminary administrative expenses without commencing its main charitable objects, expression “commencement of its activities” required factual examination of actual activities on record rather than treating date of provisional registration as conclusive evidence, therefore, matter was restored to file of CIT(E) for fresh consideration after proper factual verification. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 13 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. BSE Investors Protection Fund | Where assessee trust compensated only shortfall to investors after exhausting assets of defaulting trading member and such payments did not extinguish liability of member to Exchange or Fund, benefit accrued to investing public and not specified persons, thus there was no violation of section 13(1)(c) and exemption under sections 11 and 10(23EA) was allowable. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 68 | Bridge Medisales (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (Two rulings) |
1. Where assessee with established business was subjected to addition under section 68 for cash deposits but only 10 percent was sustained as unexplained income on estimation due to incomplete linkage with sales, in absence of finding that this amount arose from undisclosed sources, such estimated addition was not liable for special tax rate under section 115BBE.
2. Where assessee, a pharmaceutical wholesaler, deposited cash collections from recorded sales and bank accounts were disclosed in audited financials without material showing deposits were from unrecorded sources, but item-wise linkage of cash with sales was not fully established, restricting addition to 10 percent of total cash deposits as income from unexplained sources was reasonable. |
Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69C | Mothi Kumar Houdekar v. Income-tax Officer | Where assessee made payments through bearer cheques exceeding claimed purchases and expenses, but source of payments from assessee’s bank accounts was not doubted by Assessing Officer, inability to explain purpose or destination of excess payments alone could not justify addition as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, so such addition was not sustainable. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C | RBS Services India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Multiple rulings on Transfer Pricing) | Covers various benchmarks, filters, and adjustments for determining arm’s length price in transfer pricing, including: exclusion of outsourced/high-end/demerged/functionally dissimilar comparables (translation/consultancy, GIS mapping, IT infrastructure, web hosting, KPO, etc.); allowance of working capital adjustment subject to workings; treatment of outsourcing-heavy models; and no separate adjustment for outstanding receivables or recovered allocated costs with ALP mark-up. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 153D | Piyush Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central | Prior approval contemplated under section 153D is a mandatory statutory requirement, and an assessment-order passed without such valid prior approval is unsustainable in law. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 199 & Section 203 | Manohar Ramabtar Jhunjhunwala v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax |
1. Where assessee proved that tax was deducted at source from his salary, Department must grant credit for such TDS and could not recover demand from deductee merely because deductor failed to deposit tax to Central Government.
2. Where assessee was unable to produce Form 16 or Form 16A as TDS was deducted but not deposited by his employer and credit was denied as TDS did not reflect in Form 26AS, since assessee provided salary documents and pursued employer’s insolvency claim, showing only net salary was admitted, indicating TDS, claim for TDS could not be rejected solely for lack of such certificates. |
Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 226 | TASC Jawaahar Ayya v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Three rulings) | In matters relating to collection and recovery of tax and the application of limitation periods under Rule 68B for sale of attached properties: amendments extending limitation and Covid-19 exclusions applied to validate sale proclamations for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 where limitation had not expired by 1-9-2019; however, for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 where the original three-year limitation period expired before the 2019 amendment, the sale of the attached property was barred by limitation. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |