INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 14.09.2026
.
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 2(14) | Namdeo Janku Thorat v. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | Land recorded as industrial in the registered deed and fallow non-agricultural in 7/12 records, sold to a non-agriculturist with no agricultural activity conducted, is a capital asset and not agricultural land. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 9 | Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. | Click Here | Payments to non-resident telcos for voice termination, bandwidth, and O&M without control or access to identified equipment do not constitute royalty/FTS or business profits (in the absence of a PE), requiring no TDS under Section 40(a)(i). |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 11 | Sheth Shree Karshandas Halu Dharamshala Jamnagar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) | Click Here | Reinvestment of net sale consideration into fixed deposits for over six months by a charitable trust qualifies as the acquisition of another capital asset under Section 11(1A), entitling the trust to exemption despite inadvertent omission in the return. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 36(1)(iv) | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 5 v. Syama Prasad Mookherjee Port | Click Here | Ad hoc extraordinary contribution to an approved Superannuation Fund to bridge actuarial deficits (past and current) is neither an initial nor ordinary annual contribution; hence, the Rule 87 ceiling does not apply. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 36(1)(v) | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 5 v. Syama Prasad Mookherjee Port | Click Here | Contributions made to an approved Gratuity Fund to meet an actuarial shortfall are not ordinary annual contributions, rendering the ceiling under Rule 103 inapplicable and disallowance unwarranted. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 36(1)(va) | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 5 v. Syama Prasad Mookherjee Port | Click Here | Where no specific due date is prescribed under the governing regulations for depositing employees’ PF contributions, a standard software entry of the 15th does not trigger disallowance under Section 36(1)(va). |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 37(1) | Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. | Click Here | Indirect operational expenses incurred to maintain service quality of existing and usable network infrastructure are allowable as revenue expenditure, irrespective of whether they were capitalized as CWIP in books. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 37(1) | Mobitech Creations (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Click Here | Royalty paid at 7% for trademark use under a bona fide third-party agreement cannot be unilaterally benchmarked or disallowed as excessive under Section 37(1) without establishing a Section 92A relationship. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 40(a)(ia) | Deepak Bajaj v. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | Failure by the AO to examine TDS liability on payments made to artists, technicians, and for equipment hire renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, validating revision under Section 263. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 54B | Namdeo Janku Thorat v. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | Exemption under Section 54B is unavailable where the land transferred was classified for industrial purposes and had not been used by the assessee or their parents for agricultural purposes in the preceding two years. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 68 | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sohanraj Uttamchand | Click Here | Significant price appreciation of shares sold on a recognized stock exchange through banking channels cannot form the sole basis for an addition under Section 68 without cogent proof of price rigging or manipulation. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 68 | Bharat Balvantrai Goradia v. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | Additional evidence comprising bank and CDSL statements submitted to prove the genuineness of share transactions giving rise to short-term capital loss must be admitted and re-adjudicated by the CIT(A). |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69A | Rajesh Kumar Jain v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Click Here | In a post-01.04.2021 search, an assessment completed solely via notice under Section 143(2) without issuing a notice under Section 148 is void ab initio; lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by approval or compulsory scrutiny guidelines. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 90 | Ramesh Jethanand Jethnani v. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | Filing of Form No. 67 within the due date under Section 139(1) is directory, not mandatory; Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) cannot be denied if foreign taxes paid are verified. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 92A | Mobitech Creations (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Click Here | Where a licensor is not disclosed as a related entity and there is no evidence establishing a deemed Associated Enterprise relationship, the transaction constitutes third-party dealing and transfer pricing provisions cannot be invoked. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 92C | UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 8(3)(1) | Click Here | In a slump sale to a third party, the TPO cannot arbitrarily attribute 99% of consideration to the Indian subsidiary based purely on AMP spend without benchmarking or following statutory methods prescribed under Section 92C. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 115BAC | Amit Arora v. ITO | Click Here | Substantial compliance with Section 115BAC cannot be denied due to a minor delay (9 days) in uploading Form 10-IE caused by technical glitches on the e-filing portal. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 115-O | UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 8(3)(1) | Click Here | The claim for restricting Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under DTAA rates (India-Belgium DTAA at 15%) is subject to reconsideration pending the final ruling of the Supreme Court on the subject. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 147A | Jyoti Sareen v. Union of India | Click Here | Retrospective insertion of Section 147A via non-obstante clauses to overturn judicial precedents without modifying Section 151A encroaches upon judicial powers and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 148 | Jyoti Sareen v. Union of India | Click Here | Reassessment notices issued directly by jurisdictional AOs bypassing the randomized automated allocation of the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme under Section 151A are invalid and lack jurisdiction. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 151 | Konkuduru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-1 | Click Here | Reassessment notices issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year require sanction from the specified higher authorities under Section 151(ii) (Pr. CCIT/CCIT/Pr. DGIT/DGIT); approval by a Pr. CIT invalidates the proceedings. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 199 | Samir Kumar De v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Click Here | Where fixed deposit interest is clubbed under Section 64 into the spouse’s return without following Rule 37BA declarations, the TDS credit must still be granted to the deductee whose PAN bears the deduction. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 234A | UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 8(3)(1) | Click Here | Interest under Section 234A is not leviable when return filing is delayed by one day due to portal technical errors, provided bona fide intent and readiness to file on the due date are established. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 271(1)(c) | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sohanraj Uttamchand | Click Here | When the quantum addition under Section 68 regarding genuine, exchange-traded equity shares is deleted, the consequential penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive. |