INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 22.05.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Citation | Brief Summary |
| Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 | Section 2(9) | Jagdish Kumar M. Gupta v. Initiating Officer, BPU-1 Mumbai | Click Here | Provisional attachment was justified where flats were purchased by the appellant but registered in third-party names, followed by gift deeds to the appellant, establishing a benami transaction under the 2016 amended definition. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 28(i) | Empower India Ltd. v. ACIT, Central | Click Here | For estimated commission income on bogus/circular transactions, the commission must be computed on correct turnover. Telescoping is restricted to net returned income rather than gross profits. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 43CA | Shreem Properties v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Click Here | When the DVO valuation replaces the stamp duty value, the safe harbor tolerance band (10%) must be applied to the DVO value. Since the variation fell within this band, the addition was deleted. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69A | Empower India Ltd. v. ACIT, Central | Click Here | Unexplained money addition deleted as cash deposits during the demonetization period were reasonably explained by preceding documented bank withdrawals and books of account. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69A | Bharat Chandrakant Trivedi v. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | Reassessment proceedings quashed as the reopening notice (alleging on-money receipt on agricultural land) relied on third-party search material that made no reference to the assessee. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 69C | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kross Diamonds (P.) Ltd. | Click Here | Diamond import purchases made via proper banking channels with valid documentation cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure simply because subsequent sales were cash-based or buyers were unidentified. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 140A | Empower India Ltd. v. ACIT, Central | Click Here | The Assessing Officer was directed to grant credit for self-assessment tax paid by the assessee after due verification of Form 26AS. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 145 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd. | Click Here | SLP dismissed against the deletion of an addition for suppressed production yield; rejection of books of account is invalid in the absolute absence of adverse material. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 151 | Joana Diago Dsouza v. Income-tax Officer | Click Here | Reassessment proceedings quashed because the reopening notice was issued beyond three years without mandatory sanction from the PCCIT under Section 151(ii) (approval was erroneously obtained from the PCIT). |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 220 | Cadence Design Systems India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax | Click Here | Revenue authorities cannot insist on a mandatory 20% demand deposit for a stay of demand when the underlying issue (ESOP expenditure disallowance) is already covered in favor of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court. |
INCOME TAX CASE LAWS