<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 11.08.2026 Archives - Tax Heal</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.taxheal.com/tag/income-tax-case-laws-11-08-2026/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.taxheal.com/tag/income-tax-case-laws-11-08-2026</link>
	<description>Complete Guide for Income Tax and GST in India</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:46:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 11.08.2026</title>
		<link>https://www.taxheal.com/income-tax-case-laws-11-08-2026.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CA Satbir Singh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 08:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Famous income tax cases in india]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income tax case laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 11.08.2026]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Income tax case laws 2026]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Income tax case laws in india]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Income Tax case laws Search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Income tax case laws section wise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latest case laws in income tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxheal income tax case laws]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.taxheal.com/?p=138193</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 11.08.2026 Section Case Law Title Citation Relevant Act Brief Summary Section 2(47) Smt. Mrunalini Kalagara v. Income-tax officer Click Here Income-tax Act, 1961 Transfer of immovable property via a registered sale deed constitutes a &#8220;transfer&#8221; attracting capital gains under Section 45, even if coercion or non-receipt of consideration is claimed. Matter… <span class="read-more"><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/income-tax-case-laws-11-08-2026.html">Read More &#187;</a></span></p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 style="text-align: center;">INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 11.08.2026</h2>
<table data-path-to-node="0">
<thead>
<tr>
<td>Section</td>
<td>Case Law Title</td>
<td>Citation</td>
<td>Relevant Act</td>
<td>Brief Summary</td>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,1,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,1,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 2(47)</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,1,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,1,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Smt. Mrunalini Kalagara v. Income-tax officer</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-madhusudan-sawdia-accountant-member-9.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,1,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,1,4,0">Transfer of immovable property via a registered sale deed constitutes a &#8220;transfer&#8221; attracting capital gains under Section 45, even if coercion or non-receipt of consideration is claimed. Matter remanded due to unreasoned cost of acquisition.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,2,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,2,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 4</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,2,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,2,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">OYO Hotels and Homes (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-s-rifaur-rahman-accountant-member-6.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,2,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,2,4,0">Reversal of management fee accruals without supporting documentary evidence warranted remanding the matter back to the AO for proper verification and opportunity of hearing.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,3,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,3,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 11</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,3,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,3,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Sadhu Vasvani Mission v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/a-s-supehia-and-ms-vaibhavi-d-nanavati-jj-32.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,3,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,3,4,0">Delay in filing Form 10 for accumulation of unspent income due to oversight/first-time e-filing required condonation under CBDT Circular No. 7/2018 when funds were invested in prescribed modes.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,4,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,4,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 12AB</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,4,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,4,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Bombay Patel Welfare Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions)</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-makarand-vasant-mahadeokar-accountant-member-19.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,4,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,4,4,0">Merely answering &#8216;Yes&#8217; to irrevocability in Form 10AB when the trust deed lacked an express irrevocability or dissolution clause does not amount to furnishing false information; rejection of registration was unjustified.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,5,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,5,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 14A</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,5,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,5,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Bayer Bioscience (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) &#8211; 10</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-prabhash-shankar-accountant-member-16.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,5,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,5,4,0">Disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is to be deleted if the assessee demonstrates that its own interest-free funds exceeded the investments made.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,6,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,6,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 28</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,6,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,6,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Bayer Bioscience (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) &#8211; 10</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-prabhash-shankar-accountant-member-16.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,6,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,6,4,0">Write-off of an irrecoverable VAT/CST refund arising from sales returns is allowable as a business loss under Section 28 / Section 37(1) as it arose in the ordinary course of business.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,7,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,7,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 36(1)(vii)</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,7,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,7,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Bayer Bioscience (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) &#8211; 10</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-prabhash-shankar-accountant-member-16.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,7,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,7,4,0">Bad debts written off in the books of account qualify for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with 36(2) when sales were offered to tax in earlier years and supported by ledger entries.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,8,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,8,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 37(1)</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,8,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,8,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">OYO Hotels and Homes (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-s-rifaur-rahman-accountant-member-6.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="color: #333333;">Click Here</span></a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,8,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,8,4,0">Assured margin paid to group entities for business transformation services is allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) and not subject to Section 40A(2) disallowance.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,9,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,9,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 37(1)</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,9,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,9,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Deputy Commissioner Income Tax v. Gunasekaran</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-ms-padmavathy-s-accountant-member-14.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,9,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,9,4,0">Ad hoc disallowances of labor, salary, and business expenses without pointing out specific defects in books or proving fictitious payees are unsustainable in law.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,10,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,10,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 37(1)</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,10,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,10,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/bhargav-d-karia-and-pranav-trivedi-jj-14.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,10,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,10,4,0">Corporate guarantee liability settled and debited as a provision in an earlier year crystallized in that period and is deductible as a business expenditure.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,11,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,11,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 56</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,11,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,11,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Manoj Kumar Singh Yadav v. Income-tax Officer</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-g-d-padmahshali-accountant-member-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,11,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,11,4,0">Ad hoc addition for undisclosed rental income from plant hiring is unsustainable when the revenue cannot disprove that such income was already included in the reported taxable income.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,12,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,12,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 56</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,12,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,12,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">OYO Hotels and Homes (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-s-rifaur-rahman-accountant-member-6.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="color: #333333;">Click Here</span></a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,12,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,12,4,0">AO cannot re-evaluate or substitute the DCF valuation method adopted by a merchant banker/valuer under Rule 11UA for CCPS issuance, nor invoke Section 56(2)(viib) on conversion into equity shares.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,13,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,13,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 68</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,13,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,13,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">ACIT v. H S Jewels badaun (P.) Ltd.</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-anadee-nath-misshra-accountant-member-5.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,13,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,13,4,0">No addition under Section 68 can be made in a Section 153A assessment for completed/unabated assessment years in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,14,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,14,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 68</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,14,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,14,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">ACIT v. H S Jewels badaun (P.) Ltd.</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-anadee-nath-misshra-accountant-member-5.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,14,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,14,4,0">Cash deposits during demonetization duly recorded in audited books with accepted trading results and no rejection of books under Section 145(3) cannot be added as unexplained cash credits.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,15,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,15,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 68</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,15,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,15,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Income-tax Officer v. Abhishek Harshkumar Jain</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-girish-agrawal-accountant-member-17.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,15,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,15,4,0">Addition under Section 68 for LTCG on share sales is unsustainable where standard transaction proofs (broker notes, demat, bank statements) are provided and no link to price manipulation is shown.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,16,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,16,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 68</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,16,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,16,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 3 v. Ashokumar Bhavanbhai Patel</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/bhargav-d-karia-and-niral-r-mehta-jj.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,16,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,16,4,0">Reopening assessment merely to verify the source of cash deposits without tangible material showing escapement of income amounts to a fishing enquiry and is without jurisdiction.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,17,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,17,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 69A</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,17,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,17,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Manoj Kumar Singh Yadav v. Income-tax Officer</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-g-d-padmahshali-accountant-member-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,17,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,17,4,0">Bank deposits in a &#8220;Bank Mitra&#8221; account representing customer funds for intermediary banking services cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,18,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,18,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 69A</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,18,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,18,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Navjeevan Dharmi Associates v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/b-p-colabawalla-and-amit-s-jamsandekar-jj.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,18,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,18,4,0">Assessing undisclosed income declared under IDS, 2016 (where full payment failed/proof was lacking) as unexplained money under Section 69A is justified.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,19,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,19,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 69C</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,19,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,19,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Deputy Commissioner Income Tax v. Gunasekaran</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-ms-padmavathy-s-accountant-member-14.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,19,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,19,4,0">Ad hoc 50% disallowance/addition of purchases under Section 69C is unsustainable when purchases are reflected in GSTR-2A and AO makes no independent verification to prove non-existent suppliers.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,20,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,20,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 69C</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,20,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,20,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Income-tax Officer v. Abhishek Harshkumar Jain</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-girish-agrawal-accountant-member-17.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,20,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,20,4,0">Estimated commission addition under Section 69C fails automatically when the primary Section 68 addition for alleged bogus LTCG transactions is deleted.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,21,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,21,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 80G</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,21,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,21,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Bombay Patel Welfare Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions)</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-makarand-vasant-mahadeokar-accountant-member-19.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,21,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,21,4,0">Procedural delay in filing Form 10AB for regular approval under Section 80G should be condoned; rejection purely on procedural grounds without adverse findings on activities is improper.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,22,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,22,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 80G</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,22,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,22,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Bombay Patel Welfare Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions)</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-makarand-vasant-mahadeokar-accountant-member-19.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,22,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,22,4,0">Absence of an explicit irrevocability or dissolution clause in a trust deed does not warrant rejection under Section 80G in the absence of provisions allowing re-transfer/revocation.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,23,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,23,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 80P</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,23,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,23,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Suryakiran Co-operative Housing Service Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/dr-b-r-r-kumar-vice-president-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,23,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,23,4,0">If Form 10-IF (opting for Section 115BAD) was filed by mistake, the AO must compute tax under the old regime and allow Section 80P deductions if the new regime was not previously opted for.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,25,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,25,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 144C</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,25,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,25,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Siddhant Rastogi v. Union of India</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/alok-mathur-and-amitabh-kumar-rai-jj-3.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,25,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,25,4,0">If a non-resident assessee files objections only before the AO and not before the DRP as required under Section 144C(2)(b), the AO can validly pass the final order under Section 144C(3).</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,26,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,26,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 144C</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,26,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,26,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Unisys India (P.) Ltd.</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/s-g-pandit-and-k-v-aravind-jj-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,26,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,26,4,0">Typographical discrepancies in manually mentioned DINs do not invalidate DRP/revisional orders if the accompanying intimation correctly identifies the order and contains the correct DIN.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,27,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,27,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 153A</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,27,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,27,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Rudra Pratap Tripathi v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-arun-khodpia-accountant-member-16.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,27,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,27,4,0">Invoking Section 153A beyond 6 assessment years requires establishing that escaped income is represented by specified assets as per Explanation 2 to the fourth proviso of Section 153A.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,28,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,28,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 168</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,28,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,28,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Estate of Late Rajen Krishnalal Shah v. Income-tax Officer</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-prabhash-shankar-accountant-member-17.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,28,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,28,4,0">Assessing an executor&#8217;s return at Maximum Marginal Rate (AJP) without examining the Will is improper; matter remanded to verify the Will for applicability of individual slab rates under Section 168.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,29,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,29,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 199</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,29,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,29,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Navjeevan Dharmi Associates v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/b-p-colabawalla-and-amit-s-jamsandekar-jj.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,29,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,29,4,0">Partial payments made under IDS 2016 must be credited against tax liability upon subsequent reassessment, as the revenue cannot retain taxes paid contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,30,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,30,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 199</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,30,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,30,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Navjeevan Dharmi Associates v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/b-p-colabawalla-and-amit-s-jamsandekar-jj.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,30,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,30,4,0">AO must verify and grant set-off for advance tax, TDS, and self-assessment tax paid under IDS 2016 when finalizing tax liability in reassessment proceedings.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,31,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,31,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 246A</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,31,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,31,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Siddhant Rastogi v. Union of India</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/alok-mathur-and-amitabh-kumar-rai-jj-3.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,31,3,0">Constitution of India, 1950 <span data-path-to-node="0,31,3,0" data-index-in-node="28">(referred in Context of IT Act)</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,31,4,0">Writ petition against an assessment order is non-maintainable when an alternative, efficacious statutory appeal route exists under Section 246A before CIT(A).</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,32,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,32,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 254</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,32,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,32,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Kamlesh Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-b-m-biyani-accountant-member-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,32,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,32,4,0">Ex-parte assessment/appellate orders passed due to non-representation following the death of an assessee warrant restoration to the AO to uphold principles of natural justice.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,33,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,33,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 263</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,33,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,33,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Unisys India (P.) Ltd.</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/s-g-pandit-and-k-v-aravind-jj-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,33,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,33,4,0">Initial electronic communication of orders without a DIN is valid if DIN is subsequently provided via a separate intimation referencing the original order as per CBDT Circular 19/2019.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,34,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,34,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 270A</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,34,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,34,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Legrand Netherlands B.V. v. ACIT (IT)</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-arun-khodpia-accountant-member-17.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,34,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,34,4,0">Penalty under Section 270A cannot be invoked when reclassifying income (LTCG to Dividend) results in an assessed income equal to returned income and lower tax liability, with no misreporting/suppression.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,35,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,35,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 270A</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,35,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,35,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Mixpanel, Inc v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax , International Taxation</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/dinesh-mehta-and-rajneesh-kumar-gupta-jj-7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,35,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,35,4,0">Once the underlying assessment order forming the basis of Section 270A penalty is set aside in appeal, the penalty order cannot survive; AO must await appellate outcomes under Section 275(1A).</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,36,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,36,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 271B</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,36,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,36,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Bhavishaben Bhajivala v. Income-tax Officer</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/penalty-under-section-271b-is-sustainable-when-failure-to-audit-accounts-is-backed-by-reasonable-cause.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,36,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,36,4,0">Penalty for failure to audit books under Section 271B is not justified when reasonable cause is shown, complete details are produced, and assessment is completed without additions.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,37,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,37,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 272A</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,37,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,37,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">Manoj Kumar Singh Yadav v. Income-tax Officer</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-g-d-padmahshali-accountant-member-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,37,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,37,4,0">Penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for failure to comply with Section 142(1) notices can be imposed only once for the default type, not per individual unattended notice.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,38,0,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,38,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 276CC</span></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,38,1,0"><span data-path-to-node="0,38,1,0" data-index-in-node="0">K.P. Constructions Engineers and Contractors v. Income-tax Officer</span></span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/prosecution-under-section-276cc-is-impermissible-and-liable-to-be-quashed-when-no-tax-is-outstanding-due-to-prepaid-tds.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,38,3,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,38,4,0">Prosecution for non-filing of return under Section 276CC is liable to be quashed if appellate deletion of additions results in no tax due and excess TDS exists, satisfying the proviso to Section 276CC.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
