INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 31.10.2026
Here is the structured table containing the legal details extracted from the provided text:
| Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation | Relevant Act |
| Section 12AB | Sahulat Microfinance Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax | Rejection of fresh registration/renewal under section 12AB was justified where a society engaged in microfinance received major cash donations without donor identities and failed to substantiate genuineness of charitable activities. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 32 | Zee Akaash News (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT/DCIT, Central | Where depreciation on office furniture was disallowed because the supplier failed to respond under section 133(6) and investigation reports were not shared with the assessee for rebuttal, the matter must be remitted for de novo consideration. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 36(1)(iii) | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shriram Chits Tamiladu (P.) Ltd. | Overdraft interest cannot be disallowed for diversion of interest-bearing funds to interest-free loans when the assessee possesses sufficient surplus funds. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 36(1)(va) | Rajesh Maru v. NFAC, New Delhi | Late deposits of employees’ PF/ESIC contributions made after the statutory due dates are liable to be disallowed. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 36(1)(vii) | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shriram Chits Tamiladu (P.) Ltd. | Pumping in own funds by a chit fund company to cover defaults and ensure the continuity of the chit cycle can be treated as a bad debt. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shriram Chits Tamiladu (P.) Ltd. | Royalty paid for non-exclusive, non-transferable use of a trademark/logo for a specified period to expand business qualifies as allowable revenue expenditure. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(7) | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Flowserve Sanmar Ltd. | Specific provision of section 40A(7)(b) regarding provisions made to an approved gratuity fund prevails over section 43B, making the deduction allowable without disallowance. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 43CA | Ladam Homes (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT | The retrospective 10 percent tolerance band applies as curative when selling flats below stamp duty value; differences falling within this band require deletion of additions. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 45 | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shantaben K. Patel | Where an arbitration award recognized trademark ownership and a ₹50 crore receipt was consideration for transferring intangible assets, it was not taxable as royalty, annuity, or capital gains due to unascertainable cost of acquisition. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 68 | Rajesh Maru v. NFAC, New Delhi | Amounts reflected in Form 26AS representing mediclaim reimbursements and credit notes meant for reversal do not constitute income and additions made on them must be deleted. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 68 (r.w.s 148) | Chetan Sabharwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | Reassessment initiated under section 148 was valid where an Investigation Unit reported that shares sold for capital gains were overvalued relative to underlying assets, constituting tangible material. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69A | Nadupatty Venkatachalam Jayaraman v. Income-tax Officer | Notice issued under section 148 in April 2022 for AY 2015-16 based on unexplained cash deposits was barred by limitation under the first proviso to section 149 and was quashed. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 80JJAA | Aegis Customer Support Services (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | Where a deduction under section 80JJAA was raised for the first time during assessment proceedings via a revised computation and manual Form 10DA, the matter requires factual verification by the AO. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 148A | Vinay Harishkumar Bhansali v. Income-tax Officer | An order under section 148A(d) and consequential notice based on new issues (margin money/interest disallowance) not covered in the original show-cause notice are quashed as beyond permissible scope. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 263 | Arulmigu Dharmarajar Thirukovil v. ITO | CIT(E) is justified in invoking section 263 to correct an erroneous quantification of interest by an appellate order that failed to address the correct quantum. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 271 | Ritu Agarwal v. ACIT, Range-4 | Penalty proceedings initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars but issued via a notice alleging concealment of income are void ab initio and must be quashed. | Click Here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 271(1)(c) | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shantaben K. Patel | Where the underlying quantum addition of ₹50 crores was deleted on merits, penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is not leviable. | Click here | Income-tax Act, 1961 |