<?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 14.5.2025 Archives - Tax Heal</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.taxheal.com/tag/income-tax-case-laws-14-5-2025/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.taxheal.com/tag/income-tax-case-laws-14-5-2025</link>
	<description>Complete Guide for Income Tax and GST in India</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 06:50:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 14.5.2025</title>
		<link>https://www.taxheal.com/income-tax-case-laws-14-5-2025.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CA Satbir Singh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 06:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 14.5.2025]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.taxheal.com/?p=129884</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 14.5.2025 Section Case Law Title Brief Summary Citation Relevant Act 11 Breach Candy Hospital Trust v. ACIT Appeal disposition without considering pending writ and interim relief regarding exemption approval was improper; must await final writ outcome. Click Here Income-tax Act, 1961 11 T.K. Raja Educational Charitable Trust v. ITO Exemption cannot… <span class="read-more"><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/income-tax-case-laws-14-5-2025.html">Read More &#187;</a></span></p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 14.5.2025</strong></p>
<table data-path-to-node="2">
<thead>
<tr>
<td><strong>Section</strong></td>
<td><strong>Case Law Title</strong></td>
<td><strong>Brief Summary</strong></td>
<td><strong>Citation</strong></td>
<td><strong>Relevant Act</strong></td>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,1,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,1,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">11</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,1,1,0">Breach Candy Hospital Trust v. ACIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,1,2,0">Appeal disposition without considering pending writ and interim relief regarding exemption approval was improper; must await final writ outcome.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/it-appeal-no-1087-mum-of-2026-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,1,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,2,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,2,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">11</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,2,1,0">T.K. Raja Educational Charitable Trust v. ITO</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,2,2,0">Exemption cannot be denied solely for filing Form 10B after the return but before processing, provided it is available during assessment.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/it-appeal-nos-518-519-chny-of-2026-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,2,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,3,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,3,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">32</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,3,1,0">CIT v. Tata Motors Ltd.</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,3,2,0">SLP dismissed; the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on assets even if they have been entered into various lease transactions.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/slp-civil-diary-no-23176-of-2026.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,3,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,4,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,4,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">45</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,4,1,0">Suribabu Pallanti v. ITO</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,4,2,0">Transactions pertaining to a different assessment year (AY 2017-18) must be excluded when computing capital gains for the subject year.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/it-appeal-no-595-viz-of-2025-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,4,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,5,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,5,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">68</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,5,1,0">Suman Sharma v. ITO</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,5,2,0">Unsecured loans from husband/HUF cannot be treated as unexplained if identity and genuineness are not disputed, despite low returned income.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/it-appeal-no-760-bang-of-2026-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,5,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,6,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,6,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">69B</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,6,1,0">Suribabu Pallanti v. ITO</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,6,2,0">AO directed to restrict the assessee&#8217;s share to 1/5th in a sale transaction involving five co-owners where specific shares weren&#8217;t in the deed.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/it-appeal-no-595-viz-of-2025-3.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,6,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,7,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,7,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">69B</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,7,1,0">Suribabu Pallanti v. ITO</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,7,2,0">Duplication of sale proceeds is prohibited; an amendment deed correcting an original document does not constitute a separate transaction.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/it-appeal-no-595-viz-of-2025-4.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,7,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,13,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,13,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">119 / 139</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,13,1,0">Suresh Velu Ellathukalathil v. Pr. CIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,13,2,0">Rejection of condonation of delay for filing return beyond 5 years is justified; no vested right exists to extend time beyond CBDT circular limits.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/wpc-no-14152-of-2026-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,13,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,14,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,14,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">143</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,14,1,0">DCIT v. Denso Haryana (P.) Ltd.</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,14,2,0">Once a regular assessment u/s 143(3) is completed, the original 143(1) intimation merges with it, rendering appeals against the intimation infructuous.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/it-appeal-no-989-del-of-2025-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,14,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,15,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,15,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">145</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,15,1,0">Suman Sharma v. ITO</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,15,2,0">Ad-hoc enhancement of net profit due to a declining profit ratio is deleted if books are not rejected and no specific defects are found.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/it-appeal-no-760-bang-of-2026-3.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,15,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,16,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,16,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">148</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,16,1,0">Hari Bhoomi Communications v. ACIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,16,2,0">Jurisdiction for a 148 notice based on third-party seized material is not vitiated by a subsequent stay or invalidation of the original search.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/w-p-c-no-3703-of-2026-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,16,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,17,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="2,17,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">149</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,17,1,0">ACIT v. Mohd Athar Anjum</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,17,2,0">SLP dismissed; notice for AY 2016-17 issued on 31.03.2024 was barred by limitation as the 6-year period expired on 31.03.2023.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/slp-appeal-c-diary-no-14933-of-2026-2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="2,17,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
