INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 30.05.2026

INCOME TAX CASE LAWS

Relevant Act	Section	Case Law Title	Citation	Brief Summary
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 2(14)	Jignesh Harshadbhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer	Click Here	Jointly owned agricultural land located beyond municipal limits does not constitute a “capital asset”. No capital gains addition is sustainable, especially when identical transactions by co-owners were accepted by the Revenue as agricultural.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 2(22)(e)	Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Apeejay Surendra Amanagement Services (P.) Ltd.	Click Here	Additions on account of deemed dividend can only be made in the hands of registered or beneficial shareholders.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 10(10B)	Prathibha Jgadish Unawane v. Income Tax Officer	Click Here	Ex-gratia compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS 2019 scheme constitutes retrenchment compensation under Sec 10(10B), making it a fully exempt capital receipt rather than being limited by Sec 10(10C).
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 11	Anasuya Foundation v. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)	Click Here	Section 11 benefits (deduction for application/accumulation of income) cannot be denied to a trust merely due to a procedural delay in e-filing Form 10B, provided the audit report was obtained before filing the return and submitted during appellate proceedings.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 37(1)	Britannia Industries Ltd. v. DCIT	Click Here	Issue 1: The AO is unjustified in disallowing a provision for diminution/write-off of an investment in a subsidiary if the assessee had already added it back in the return, as this results in an impermissible double disallowance. Issue 2: Broken-period interest on debentures sold before the interest became due never accrued to the assessee as business income (being realized via sale consideration) and must be excluded.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 50C	Jignesh Harshadbhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer	Click Here	Section 50C cannot be invoked to substitute deemed consideration if the land sold is agricultural and outside the definition of a “capital asset” under Sec 2(14).
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 68	PCIT v. Livros Publishing (P.) Ltd.	Click Here	Cash credit addition under Sec 68 for share capital investment from a third party is unsustainable when the assessee is not a shell entity and the Revenue lacks evidence proving the funds were routed back by the assessee.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 69A	Jignesh Harshadbhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer	Click Here	If the underlying asset sold is exempt agricultural land, any alleged “on-money” from the transaction partakes the same character and cannot be taxed separately as unexplained money under Sec 69A r.w.s 115BBE.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 80	Manish Hansraj Wadhwa v. Assessment Unit	Click Here	A 524-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) against a disallowance of house property loss should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice if the delay was bona fide and beyond the assessee’s control.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 90	Britannia Industries Ltd. v. DCIT	Click Here	Claims for beneficial DTAA tax rates on dividends distributed to UK and Singapore shareholders (instead of Sec 115-O) cannot be verified without TRCs, PE declarations, etc. Matter remanded to the AO for fresh verification.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 149	H.M. Infracon (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax	Click Here	A notice issued under Sec 148 on 31.03.2024 for AY 2013-14 is time-barred and liable to be quashed, as the limitation period reckoned backwards from AY 2024-25 exceeds the maximum statutory limit of 10 years.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 159	Devendra Pareek v. ACIT	Click Here	Reassessment proceedings and notices under sections 148A and 274 initiated directly against a deceased assessee—without impleading or proceeding against the legal representatives as mandated by Sec 159—are legally unsustainable and must be quashed.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 194LA	Tukaram Kana Pawara v. Project Director, Project Implementation Unit	Click Here	Compensation and interest awarded via an arbitral award under the National Highways Act constitutes a judgment debt. By virtue of Sec 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, it must be paid in full without any TDS deduction; deduction by an Executing Court is impermissible.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Sec 201	Kohinoor Educational Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India	Click Here	An ITAT remand to verify payments does not obligate a third party (like AAI) to issue Form 26A certificates if its records were destroyed by floods. A writ of mandamus cannot compel certification of unverified facts when requisite accounting records do not exist to show the payments were considered in taxable income.