INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 22.06.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 10 | Syngenta India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Additional ground claiming Sec 10(1) exemption on seed business raised for the first time before the ITAT must be admitted if facts are on record. The matter was remanded to the AO for factual verification. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 12A | Atomic Power Evolution Awareness Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) | CIT(E) rejected 12A renewal based on non-registration under State Trust Act and loan issues. Since re-registration and amended objects were already on record, the matter was restored for fresh consideration; loan issues can be examined during assessment. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 14A | Quick Heal Technologies Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer | In computing Rule 8D(2)(ii) disallowance (1% of annual average of monthly average investments), Mutual Funds and Tax-Free Bonds must be excluded. No further disallowance is needed if the assessee’s suo motu disallowance exceeds this computed amount. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 35 | Titan Company Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Capital R&D expenditure not certified by DSIR under Sec 35(2AB), but undisputed as incurred for scientific research, remains eligible for normal deduction under Sec 35(1)(iv). Verification allowed. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 35 | Titan Company Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Where DSIR certified capital expenditure in Form 3CL, the AO erred in allowing only 100% deduction instead of the eligible 200% weighted deduction under Sec 35(2AB) while giving effect to an appellate order. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 36 | Cinflex Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Assessee converted unsecured loans to preference shares and used interest-bearing funds for interest-free advances. Sec 36(1)(iii) disallowance must be restricted strictly to actual interest paid on those specific borrowings. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 37 | Syngenta India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Following the precedent in CIT v. Biocon Ltd., ESOP discount/expenditure is a valid, allowable business deduction under Section 37(1). |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 37(1) | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd. | Finance costs for a loan used to repay an older bank loan and refund share application money represent business necessities. The AO cannot question commercial wisdom, and deduction is allowable (excluding portions advanced to related parties). |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 54 | Narendra Vinayak Palmure v. Income-tax Officer | Reassessment was initiated solely to look into non-adoption of stamp duty value for capital gains. Since no addition was ultimately made on that ground, the AO cannot disallow a Section 54 deduction on a completely different issue in the reassessment order. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 68 | Rahul Gupta v. Income-tax Department | Writ appeal dismissed against the rejection of a Tax Evasion Petition. The authorities validly cited statutory limitations under Sec 148, and the High Court found no jurisdictional error under Article 226. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 68 | Cinflex Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Unsecured loans subsequently repaid cannot be added under Sec 68 when the assessee provides certificates of incorporation, PANs, financials, and bank statements of lenders, successfully discharging its legal burden. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 68 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax I v. Medharaj Techno Concept (P.) Ltd. | Cash deposits during demonetization explained via cash-in-hand from audited and regularly maintained books must be accepted if the AO finds no defects or contrary evidence. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 72A | Curia India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | DRP’s direction to the AO to verify records and allow the set-off of brought-forward business losses pursuant to an amalgamation under Sec 72A requires no interference. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 80G | Atomic Power Evolution Awareness Foundation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) | Rejection of Sec 80G(5) renewal was based solely on the rejection of 12A registration. Since the 12A matter was restored for fresh consideration, the 80G(5) approval issue is also restored to the CIT(E). |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 92BA | Titan Company Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | In an inter-unit transfer of semi-finished goods where segmental profits are certified by a CA, benchmarking by the TPO using margins from third-party finished goods sales is inappropriate. Deletion of the TP adjustment and protection of Sec 80IC deduction is justified. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 92C | Curia India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | The TPO was unjustified in rejecting certified segmental financial information and reallocating costs on a revenue-proportion basis without pointing out discrepancies in the assessee’s allocation method. Remanded. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 92C | Curia India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | The TPO cannot summarily substitute an ECB interest rate benchmarked at LIBOR + 3% with LIBOR + 2% without conducting a proper benchmarking analysis under Chapter X. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 92C | Curia India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Outstanding receivables from AEs constitute a separate international transaction. Interest is liable to be imputed by applying LIBOR + 200 basis points on an invoice-to-invoice basis, matching past years’ treatment. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 115-O | Syngenta India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | DTAA provisions are not attracted when a domestic company pays Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under Section 115-O. As a result, the assessee is not entitled to a refund of DDT based on DTAA rates. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 127 | Glen Appliances (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Transfer of a case under Sec 127(2) without giving an opportunity of being heard is invalid. Consequently, notices issued under Sec 143(2) by the new jurisdiction lack validity and are void. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 143 | Glen Appliances (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | Once a transfer order under Sec 127(2) is cancelled and jurisdiction returns to the original AO, an assessment order passed under Sec 143 without issuing a fresh notice under Sec 143(2) is invalid. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 149 | Supreme Build-Cap (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | A reassessment notice issued beyond the prescribed 6-year limitation period, where the AO failed to address the jurisdictional objection raised by the assessee, is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. |
2026
|
| Income-tax Act, 1961 | Section 270A | ACIT v. Nawazuddin Nawabuddin Siddiqui | Where a return is filed for the first time under Sec 148 and accepted without additions, a Sec 270A penalty is unsustainable. Mere prior non-filing does not automatically imply under-reporting; a specific charge is required. |
2026
|