INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 24.10.2026
Here is the complete summary of the case laws organized in a structured table format:
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 28(i) | Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. v. ACIT | Mark-to-market loss on AFS and HFT investments reflecting actual diminution in the value of stock-in-trade valued consistently as per RBI guidelines is allowable as a business loss. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 35 | Ceat Ltd. v. ACIT | Brought-forward losses arising from scientific research expenditure after opting for Section 115BAA cannot be treated as barred losses merely because they were originally claimed under Section 35(2AB), provided they qualify under Sections 35(1)(i), 35(1)(iv), or 37(1). | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) | Mahika Infra LLP v. ITO | GST Input Tax Credit reversals mandated by law upon receipt of building use permission constitute an irrecoverable statutory cost and are allowable as business expenditure without resulting in double deduction. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 45 | Shri Manish Tuteja v. PCIT | Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms an integral part of enhanced compensation (capital receipt); revision proceedings under Section 263 treating it as taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) are unsustainable due to debate. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 56 | Grasim Industries Ltd. v. DCIT | Reassessment notices are invalid if requisite information for income escapement is furnished after the expiry of the limitation period; subscription to rights shares proportionate to existing holdings does not attract Section 56(2)(x). | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69 | Shine Star v. DCIT | A Vivad Se Vishwas settlement covers only the original assessment specified, leaving subsequent reassessments untouched; additions under Section 69 fail if the Assessing Officer does not provide basic particulars of alleged entry providers. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69 | Duraisamy Baskarraj v. DCIT | Excess stock found during a survey that is commingled with regular goods represents business income (after telescoping) rather than unexplained investment under Section 69, making Section 115BBE inapplicable. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69A | Duraisamy Baskarraj v. DCIT | Residual physical cash found during a survey that cannot be reconciled with regular business holdings remains unexplained under Section 69A and attracts taxation under Section 115BBE. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69A | Jagdish Naraindas Chandan v. ITO | Cash deposits during demonetisation representing redeposits of earlier withdrawals, supported by regular books and contra entries, do not warrant additions under Section 69A. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 80-IBA | Rajgrin Infralink LLP v. PCIT | Rejection of a delay condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) for a belated return solely because an appeal was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C | Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. v. ACIT | TP adjustments based on third-party bank guarantee rates or arbitrary profit-splits (e.g., 50 percent attribution without FAR analysis) are unsustainable when the branch acts merely as an intermediary or loan support provider. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 153A | Pr. CIT v. Olive Overseas (P.) Ltd. | Where additions made under Section 153A are deleted by the Tribunal based on a binding High Court judgment, the Revenue’s appeal must be disposed of accordingly. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 270A | Rockline Entertainments (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | A penalty notice under Section 274 for under-reporting of income that fails to specify the precise clause of Section 270A(2) is invalid and renders penalty proceedings unsustainable. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 271(1)(c) | Joseph Domnic Dsouza v. ITO | Penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is without jurisdiction if the assessment order recorded satisfaction and initiated penalty proceedings solely under Section 271AAC. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 271AAB | Rockline Entertainments (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT | Cash expenditure recorded in kaccha books during the financial year and subsequently incorporated into regular books before filing returns does not constitute ‘undisclosed income’ for levying search penalty under Section 271AAB. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |