<?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 24.10.2026 Archives - Tax Heal</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.taxheal.com/tag/income-tax-case-laws-24-10-2026/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.taxheal.com/tag/income-tax-case-laws-24-10-2026</link>
	<description>Complete Guide for Income Tax and GST in India</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2026 11:12:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 24.10.2026</title>
		<link>https://www.taxheal.com/income-tax-case-laws-24-10-2026.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ashwani Kumar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2026 11:12:05 +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 2026]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 24.10.2026]]></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=142930</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 24.10.2026 &#160; Here is the complete summary of the case laws organized in a structured table format: Section Case Law Title Brief Summary Citation Relevant Act Section 28(i) Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. v. ACIT Mark-to-market loss on AFS and HFT investments reflecting actual diminution in the value of stock-in-trade valued consistently as… <span class="read-more"><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/income-tax-case-laws-24-10-2026.html">Read More &#187;</a></span></p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 style="text-align: center;">INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 24.10.2026</h2>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div id="model-response-message-contentr_85202cf4f4a6e496" 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">
<div class="first-token"><span class="">Here is the complete summary of the case laws organized in a structured table format:</span></div>
<table data-path-to-node="1">
<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="1,3,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,3,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 28(i)</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,3,1,0">Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. v. ACIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,3,2,0">Mark-to-market loss on AFS and HFT investments reflecting actual diminution in the value of stock-in-trade valued consistently as per RBI guidelines is allowable as a business loss.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-ms-ratna-dasgupta-accountant-member-7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,3,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,4,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,4,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 35</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,4,1,0">Ceat Ltd. v. ACIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,4,2,0">Brought-forward losses arising from scientific research expenditure after opting for Section 115BAA cannot be treated as barred losses merely because they were originally claimed under Section 35(2AB), provided they qualify under Sections 35(1)(i), 35(1)(iv), or 37(1).</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-arun-khodpia-accountant-member-46.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,4,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,5,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,5,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 37(1)</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,5,1,0">Mahika Infra LLP v. ITO</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,5,2,0">GST Input Tax Credit reversals mandated by law upon receipt of building use permission constitute an irrecoverable statutory cost and are allowable as business expenditure without resulting in double deduction.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-rahul-chaudhary-judicial-member-3.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,5,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,6,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,6,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 45</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,6,1,0">Shri Manish Tuteja v. PCIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,6,2,0">Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms an integral part of enhanced compensation (capital receipt); revision proceedings under Section 263 treating it as taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) are unsustainable due to debate.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/dr-b-r-r-kumar-and-manish-agarwal-accountant-member.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span data-path-to-node="1,6,3,0">Click Here</span></a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,6,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,7,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,7,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 56</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,7,1,0">Grasim Industries Ltd. v. DCIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,7,2,0">Reassessment notices are invalid if requisite information for income escapement is furnished after the expiry of the limitation period; subscription to rights shares proportionate to existing holdings does not attract Section 56(2)(x).</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/b-p-colabawalla-and-farhan-p-dubash-jj-6.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,7,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,8,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,8,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 69</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,8,1,0">Shine Star v. DCIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,8,2,0">A Vivad Se Vishwas settlement covers only the original assessment specified, leaving subsequent reassessments untouched; additions under Section 69 fail if the Assessing Officer does not provide basic particulars of alleged entry providers.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-g-m-doss-accountant-member-3.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span data-path-to-node="1,8,3,0">Click Here</span></a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,8,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,9,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,9,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 69</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,9,1,0">Duraisamy Baskarraj v. DCIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,9,2,0">Excess stock found during a survey that is commingled with regular goods represents business income (after telescoping) rather than unexplained investment under Section 69, making Section 115BBE inapplicable.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-ms-padmavathy-s-accountant-member-26.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,9,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,10,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,10,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 69A</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,10,1,0">Duraisamy Baskarraj v. DCIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,10,2,0">Residual physical cash found during a survey that cannot be reconciled with regular business holdings remains unexplained under Section 69A and attracts taxation under Section 115BBE.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-ms-padmavathy-s-accountant-member-26.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,10,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,11,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,11,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 69A</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,11,1,0">Jagdish Naraindas Chandan v. ITO</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,11,2,0">Cash deposits during demonetisation representing redeposits of earlier withdrawals, supported by regular books and contra entries, do not warrant additions under Section 69A.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-makarand-vasant-mahadeokar-accountant-member-45.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span data-path-to-node="1,11,3,0">Click Here</span></a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,11,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,12,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,12,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 80-IBA</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,12,1,0">Rajgrin Infralink LLP v. PCIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,12,2,0">Rejection of a delay condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) for a belated return solely because an appeal was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/a-s-supehia-and-vaibhavi-d-nanavati-jj-10.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,12,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,15,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,15,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 92C</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,15,1,0">Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. v. ACIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,15,2,0">TP adjustments based on third-party bank guarantee rates or arbitrary profit-splits (e.g., 50 percent attribution without FAR analysis) are unsustainable when the branch acts merely as an intermediary or loan support provider.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-ms-ratna-dasgupta-accountant-member-7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,15,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,19,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,19,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 153A</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,19,1,0">Pr. CIT v. Olive Overseas (P.) Ltd.</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,19,2,0">Where additions made under Section 153A are deleted by the Tribunal based on a binding High Court judgment, the Revenue&#8217;s appeal must be disposed of accordingly.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/subramonium-prasad-and-ms-renu-bhatnagar-jj.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here</a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,19,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,20,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,20,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 270A</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,20,1,0">Rockline Entertainments (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,20,2,0">A penalty notice under Section 274 for under-reporting of income that fails to specify the precise clause of Section 270A(2) is invalid and renders penalty proceedings unsustainable.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-waseem-ahmed-accountant-member-24.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span data-path-to-node="1,20,3,0">Click Here</span></a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,20,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,21,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,21,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 271(1)(c)</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,21,1,0">Joseph Domnic Dsouza v. ITO</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,21,2,0">Penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is without jurisdiction if the assessment order recorded satisfaction and initiated penalty proceedings solely under Section 271AAC.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-makarand-vasant-mahadeokar-accountant-member-46.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span data-path-to-node="1,21,3,0">Click Here</span></a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,21,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,22,0,0"><b data-path-to-node="1,22,0,0" data-index-in-node="0">Section 271AAB</b></span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,22,1,0">Rockline Entertainments (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT</span></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,22,2,0">Cash expenditure recorded in kaccha books during the financial year and subsequently incorporated into regular books before filing returns does not constitute &#8216;undisclosed income&#8217; for levying search penalty under Section 271AAB.</span></td>
<td><a href="https://www.taxheal.com/and-waseem-ahmed-accountant-member-24.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span data-path-to-node="1,20,3,0">Click Here</span></a></td>
<td><span data-path-to-node="1,22,4,0">Income-tax Act, 1961</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
