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

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure -Bogus Purchases — Addition based on estimation cannot be made without rejection of books of account. Assessee produced invoices, e-way bills, ledger accounts and bank statements, and Revenue failed to establish purchases as bogus; the entire addition was deleted. [S. 37(1),145(3) ]

Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta v. Dy. CIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonine.org

S.69A: Unexplained Money — Protective addition – under section Gold bullion found during search -Not sustainable where ownership stood admitted by company and bullion was duly recorded in books of account of the company . [S. S.132(4), S.143(3)]

Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta v. Dy. CIT (Mum.)(Trib www.itatonline.org

S. 153A: Assessment – Search – HSBC Geneva accounts- In absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessments – Foreign bank account additions based merely on the Base Note received from the French Government and not on search material were unsustainable – Addition under section 69A also deleted as Revenue failed to establish assessee’s ownership of foreign bank accounts. [S. 69A, 132, 143(1), 143(2), 147, 148, 153A]

Pr. CIT v. Arunkumar Ramniklal Mehta (Bom.)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Powers-Practice and Procedure – Authorised representative -Virtual Hearing – Dress Code – Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with SOP.[S. 288, R. 49 , ITAT R, 1963 , 17A ]

Gudari Large Sized Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd. v. ITO ( Cuttack)( Trib) www.itatonline.org .

S.271D: Penalty]-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit]-Cash received from buyer of immovable property-The applicability of amended provisions by Finance Act, 2015 has taken effect from 1st June, 2015-Agreement to sell was entered on 31st Jan., 2015, and registered sale deed was executed on 31st May, 2016-Penalty not leviable. [S. 269SS]

Bhavanishanker Naik v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 240 (Bang)(Trib)

S.271D: Penalty]-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit]-Immovable property-Amount received for providing additional amenities in the houses sold by the builder-Definition of consideration for transfer of immovable property referred to in s. 194-IA cannot be applied to consideration received for additional amenities]-Penalty was deleted. [S. 132(4), 194IA, 269SS]

DCITv. Tapadiya Construction Ltd. (2025) 236 TTJ 216 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 271AAB: Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-Not specifying the charge-Omnibus notice betrays application of mind by the AO-Entire penalty proceedings right from issue of notice to imposition of penalty are ab initio void-Penalty quashed. [S.274]

St. Joseph’s Educational Trust v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026] 133 ITR 328 (Chennai)(Trib) St.Joseph’s Institute of Science & Technology trust v.Dy.CIT 2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026] 133 ITR 328 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty]-Concealment-Surrender of claim of exemption under s. 54F-Debatable issue-Not liable for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.[S.54F]

DCIT v. Sahil Vachani (2025) 236 TTJ 137 / 126 ITR 172/ 175 taxmann.com 979 (Delhi)(TM)(Trib)

S. 270A: Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Non-specification of charge/fault in the show-cause notice-Absence of proper charge vitiates the penalty notices-Levy of penalty was quashed. [S. 274]

St. Joseph’s Educational Trust v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026) 133 ITR 328 (Chennai) (Trib) St.Joseph’s Institute of Science & Technology Trust v. Dy.CIT 2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026) 133 ITR 328 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of proper enquiry-Cost of improvement]-Allowed the claim after verification-AO’s order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue-Revision order was quashed. [S. 45, 55(1)(b)(2)]

Arjun Das Jasuja v. CIT (2025) 236 TTJ 373 (Ahd)(Trib.)