<?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 11.09.2026 Archives - Tax Heal</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.taxheal.com/tag/income-tax-case-laws-11-09-2026/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.taxheal.com/tag/income-tax-case-laws-11-09-2026</link>
	<description>Complete Guide for Income Tax and GST in India</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:26:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 11.09.2026</title>
		<link>https://www.taxheal.com/income-tax-case-laws-11-09-2026.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ashwani Kumar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:26:47 +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 11.09.2026]]></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=140573</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 11.09.2026 Section Relevant Act Case Law Title Citation Brief Summary Section 2 Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 DCIT v. R. Bharathi Click Here Creation of trade payables, conversion into premium, and share buy-backs known to benamidars do not constitute benami transactions under section 2(9)(C); Income-tax contradictions do not alter… <span class="read-more"><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/income-tax-case-laws-11-09-2026.html">Read More &#187;</a></span></p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 style="text-align: center;">INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 11.09.2026</h2>
<div id="model-response-message-contentr_a8a41e10965bf8d4" class="markdown markdown-main-panel md-content enable-luminous-fast-follows enable-updated-hr-color tutor-markdown-rendering" dir="ltr" aria-busy="false" aria-live="polite">
<table data-path-to-node="0">
<thead>
<tr>
<td><strong>Section</strong></td>
<td><strong>Relevant Act</strong></td>
<td><strong>Case Law Title</strong></td>
<td><strong>Citation</strong></td>
<td><strong>Brief Summary</strong></td>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,1,0,0">Section 2</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,1,1,0">Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,1,2,0">DCIT v. R. Bharathi</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-v-anandarajan-member.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,1,4,0">Creation of trade payables, conversion into premium, and share buy-backs known to benamidars do not constitute benami transactions under section 2(9)(C); Income-tax contradictions do not alter this.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,2,0,0">Section 9</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,2,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,2,2,0">Solvay Specialities India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-arun-khodpia-accountant-member-29.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,2,4,0">Payment to overseas group entities accepted by AO as non-taxable FTS without TDS requirement was a plausible view, making PCIT&#8217;s revision under Section 263 unsustainable.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,5,0,0">Section 12A</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,5,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,5,2,0">Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Trust Society v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-krinwant-sahay-accountant-member-6.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,5,4,0">Section 12A renewal inquiry must be limited to the preceding 3 years&#8217; objects and activities; rejection based on prior search material or Section 13 violations was without jurisdiction.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,6,0,0">Section 28(i)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,6,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,6,2,0">Bhaveshbhai Bhimjibhai Savani v. Income-tax Officer</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/a-s-supehia-and-ms-vaibhavi-d-nanavati-jj-45.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,6,4,0">Reassessment based on enabling partnership deed clauses was quashed where deed was amended to negate interest/remuneration and no payments were actually received.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,7,0,0">Section 32</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,7,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,7,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,7,4,0">Assessee was allowed to claim higher depreciation at 60% on written down value of software in accordance with binding Tribunal precedents for later years.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,8,0,0">Section 36(1)(iii)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,8,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,8,2,0">Solvay Specialities India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-arun-khodpia-accountant-member-29.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,8,4,0">Revision under Section 263 was justified to examine capitalization of ECB interest where assessee failed to demonstrate actual use of funds for working capital.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,9,0,0">Section 36(1)(vii)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,9,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,9,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,9,4,0">Disallowance of bad debt write-offs was deleted because identical claims were accepted by the revenue in a subsequent assessment year.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,10,0,0">Section 37(1)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,10,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,10,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,10,4,0">Absence of a revised return does not bar adjudication of doubtful loans/advances written off; matter remanded for factual verification.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,11,0,0">Section 37(1)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,11,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,11,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,11,4,0">Remanded to verify if written-back provisions for customs duty and leave encashment were taxed in preceding years, to allow relief if previously taxed.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,12,0,0">Section 37(1)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,12,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,12,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,12,4,0">Reversal of provision for foreseeable losses settled under Vivad se Vishwas scheme remanded to AO for factual verification and computation.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,13,0,0">Section 37(1)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,13,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,13,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,13,4,0">Warranty and replacement expense disallowances deleted because identical business expenditure claims were accepted in subsequent years.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,14,0,0">Section 37(1)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,14,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,14,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,14,4,0">Expenditure incurred to purchase business rights is allowable as revenue expenditure despite long-term benefit, following the <i data-path-to-node="0,14,4,0" data-index-in-node="126">Taparia Tools</i> principle.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,16,0,0">Section 37(1)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,16,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,16,2,0">Solvay Specialities India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-arun-khodpia-accountant-member-29.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,16,4,0">Section 263 revision for miscellaneous expenses is invalid where AO already conducted proper inquiry, received explanations, and accepted the claim.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,17,0,0">Section 40(a)(ia)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,17,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,17,2,0">Solvay Specialities India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-arun-khodpia-accountant-member-29.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,17,4,0">PCIT directive to verify TDS on payments to statutory bodies was an impermissible roving inquiry since no specific assessment error was identified.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,18,0,0">Section 40(a)(ia)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,18,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,18,2,0">Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) (TDS) v. Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/tata-communications-transformation-services-ltd.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,18,4,0">Suo-moto 30% disallowance on year-end provisions does not absolve Chapter XVII-B TDS obligations when payees are not deducted at time of provision.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,21,0,0">Section 92C</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,21,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,21,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,21,4,0">Import duty adjustment on account of higher import content in comparables granted to compute ALP, consistent with prior year&#8217;s treatment.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,22,0,0">Section 92C</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,22,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,22,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,22,4,0">Abnormal/non-recurring items (goodwill amortization, bad debts, legal costs for non-AEs) are to be excluded from operating costs under TNMM.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,23,0,0">Section 92C</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,23,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,23,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,23,4,0">Applying an unstatutory 50% turnover filter on general presumption to reject TNMM study was improper; fresh ALP computation ordered.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,24,0,0">Section 92C</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,24,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,24,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,24,4,0">Capacity utilization adjustment claim in transportation segment remanded to TPO for fresh consideration upon submission of supporting evidence.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,25,0,0">Section 92C</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,25,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,25,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,25,4,0">Dispute regarding entitlement to working capital adjustment in ALP determination remanded to TPO for fresh factual verification.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,26,0,0">Section 92C</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,26,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,26,2,0">GE India Industrial (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,26,4,0">Transfer pricing adjustments must strictly be confined to international transactions with Associated Enterprises, excluding unrelated transactions.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,43,0,0">Section 120</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,43,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,43,2,0">Indovision Commodities Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-sanjay-awasthi-accountant-member-4.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,43,4,0">Reassessment by ITO without a valid Section 127 transfer order and lacking pecuniary jurisdiction per CBDT limits is void and quashed.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,44,0,0">Section 153D</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,44,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,44,2,0">Vimal Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-b-m-biyani-accountant-member-6.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,44,4,0">Inability of Revenue to produce mandatory approval letters under Section 153D renders search assessment orders invalid and quashable.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,45,0,0">Section 154</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,45,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,45,2,0">Usha Jewellers v. Income-tax Officer</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-b-m-biyani-accountant-member-7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,45,4,0">Maintaining cash deposit additions in a dissolved firm&#8217;s assessment when already taxed in the proprietor-successor&#8217;s hands is double taxation, rectifiable under Section 154.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,46,0,0">Section 201</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,46,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,46,2,0">Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) (TDS) v. Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/tata-communications-transformation-services-ltd.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,46,4,0">Verification of payee identity and credit details is required to determine Chapter XVII-B TDS liability on year-end estimated provisions.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,47,0,0">Section 220</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,47,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,47,2,0">VSAIPPL-SMC(JV) v. Income-tax Officer</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/p-sam-koshy-and-vakiti-ramakrishna-reddy-jj.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,47,4,0">Mandating a blanket 20% deposit for stay of demand based on CBDT guidelines without exercising independent statutory discretion is illegal.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,48,0,0">Section 237</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,48,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,48,2,0">Commissioner of Income-tax &#8211; International Taxation -1 v. Dipankar Mohan Ghosh</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/dinesh-mehta-and-rajneesh-kumar-gupta-jj-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,48,4,0">A return filed post-Section 148 notice due to bona fide AAR pendency is on par with a regular return; refund of prepaid taxes and interest cannot be denied.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,49,0,0">Section 245B</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,49,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,49,2,0">DCIT v. R. Bharathi</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-v-anandarajan-member.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,49,4,0">Settlement Commission orders holding trade payables genuine bind Income Tax proceedings only, with no overriding effect on Benami Act actions.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,50,0,0">Section 270A</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,50,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,50,2,0">Tasneem Feroz Nalwalla v. ITO</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-vikram-singh-yadav-accountant-member-22.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,50,4,0">Unreported interest income by an elderly NR reliance on an accountant constitutes &#8216;under-reporting&#8217; but not &#8216;misreporting&#8217;; penalty capped at 50%.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,51,0,0">Section 271(1)(c)</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,51,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,51,2,0">Commissioner of Income-tax &#8211; International Taxation -1 v. Dipankar Mohan Ghosh</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/dinesh-mehta-and-rajneesh-kumar-gupta-jj-21.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,51,4,0">Penalty order for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive once the underlying reassessment order is set aside.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,52,0,0">Section 271AAB</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,52,1,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,52,2,0">Income-tax Officer v. Vaibhav Gattani</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-prakash-accountant-member.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="0,52,4,0">Surrendered loan advances based on diary entries without corroborating assets do not constitute &#8216;undisclosed income&#8217;; penalty under 271AAB deleted.</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
