This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
S. 12 : Punishment for contempt of court-Dy. CIT, Range-2, Lucknow (now retired) to be guilty under s. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Accordingly, a fine of Rs. 25,000 along with simple imprisonment for a period of one week is awarded to the contemnor-Dy. CIT, Range-2, Lucknow (now retired)—In case of default, he would suffer one day’s further simple imprisonment. [S.124(2), 127, Art. 226]

Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani, DYCIT [2024] 165 taxmann.com 471 / (2025) 342 CTR 53 / (2024) 244 DTR 1 (All)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020
S. 2(1)(j):Disputed tax—Additional ground of appeal— Non search case-Computation could not be @ 125 per cent but had to be @ only 100 per cent-Competent authority is directed to accept the form as claimed by the assessee. [S. 2(1)(n), 3, ITAct, S. 10(38), 45, 68, Art.226]

Umesh Navnitlal Shah (HUF) v. ITO (2025) 342 CTR 563 / 245 DTR 425 / 170 taxmann.com 674 (Bom)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

S. 2(1)(j): Disputed tax-Pendency of appeal-Rejection of declaration-Pendency of review petition-Review petition will also partake the character of pending proceedings and therefore the assessee should not have been non-suited or treated as ineligible for claiming benefit under DTVSV Act—Impugned order is hereby set aside—Respondent is directed to accept the revised declaration form filed by the assessee and process the same in accordance with DTVSV Act, 2020 and pass requisite orders in terms thereof. [S. 2(1)(a)(i), Art. 226]

NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. v. ITD [2024] 169 taxmann.com 85 / (2025) 342 CTR 502 / 245 DTR 163 / (Delhi)(HC)

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void-Priority of claim-Sale of property for dues of State Sales-tax Department— Provision of S. 26B of KGST Act, by virtue of the non obstante clause, excludes the operation of “any other law in force” and creates a first charge on the property of the dealer-The properties in possession of the petitioners cannot be proceeded against for realization of the arrears payable under the IT Act. [S. 222, Sch. II, R, 2& 16, Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, S. 26B]

Job G. Oommen v. UOI [2024] 169 taxmann.com 407 / (2025) 342 CTR 315 / 245 DTR 153 (Ker)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Revised return-After survey-Additional income—Order of Tribunal confirming the penalty is affirmed. [S. 139(5), 260A]

Dr. S. Duraisamy v. DCIT (2025) 342 CTR 668 / (2024) 243 DTR 210 (Mad)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-The AO had made all inquiries and verifications as required under the law-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed-No substantial question of law.[S. 143(3), 260A]

PCIT v. Dharam Singh (2025) 342 CTR 653 / 245 DTR 369 (All)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Sufficient opportunity was provided-Writ petition is dismissed-If the assessee deposits 20 per cent of the assessed tax, the stay application shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of filing of the appeal before Tribunal and stay application.[S. 253, Art. 226.

C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan v. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 397/ (2025) 342 CTR 684 / (2024) 244 DTR 295 (Ker)(HC) Editorial : C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan v.CIT [2024] 169 taxmann.com 136 / (2025) 342 CTR 678 / (2024) 244 DTR 289 (Ker)(HC), division bench modified the condition of deposit of 20 per cent.

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Sufficient opportunity was provided-Order of single judge dismissing the writ petition is affirmed-Order is modified to the extent to remit 20 per cent of the disputed tax as a precondition for filing a stay petition along with the appeal before the Tribunal.[S. 220(6), 250(4), Art. 226]

C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan v. CIT [2024] 169 taxmann.com 136 / (2025) 342 CTR 678 / (2024) 244 DTR 289 (Ker)(HC) Editorial : C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan v. CIT (2025) 342 CTR 684/ (2024) 244 DTR 295 (Ker)(HC), is modified.

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Appeal filed manually-Dismissal of appeal-Appellate authority is directed to take into consideration the date of filing of the manual appeal for the purposes of calculating and appreciating the issue of delay in respect of the appeal preferred online. [S. 250, Art.226]

Electron Volt Renewables (P) Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 168 taxmann.com 378 / (2025) 342 CTR 357 / 245 DTR 134 (AP)(HC)

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds-Directed to refund the amount with interest.[R. 31A,Form No 26B, Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, S. 5, 6, 7, Art. 226]

Dish TV India Ltd. v CIT (2025) 342 CTR 430 / 245 DTR 438 (All) (HC)