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. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Search-Revised return-Claims of deduction were not accepted-Would not amount to wilful evasion of tax.[S. 132,139(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 482]

Anurag Bagaria v. ITO (2024) 158 taxmann.com 546 (Karn)(HC)

S. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-Penalty cannot be levied when the assessment is completed u/s 143(3)-Penalty is deleted.[S.272A(1)(d), 274]

Bhavna Modi v. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 236 (Raipur)(Trib.)

S.271D: Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Cash received-Sale of rights in property-Property was registered in June 2016-Amendment is prospective-Specified sum explanation introduced with effect from 1-6.2015 [S. 269SS]

Renu Bala v. Addl.CIT(2024) Chamber’s Journal-August-P. 173 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Charitable Trust-Depreciation on assets which are claimed as application of income-Bonfide error-Penalty is deleted.[S.270A(9)]

St. Peter’s School v. ITO (2024) Chamber’s Journal-November-P. 114 (Kol)(Trib)

S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Not specifying the charge-Penalty levied for misreporting-Notice issued was under reporting of income-Levy of penalty is cancelled. [S. 274]

Mohd. Sarwar v. ITO (2024) Chamber’s Journal-May-P. 137 (Hyd)(Trib)

S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Excess depreciation claimed-Bona fide mistake-Penalty is deleted. [S. 139]

DCIT v. Sasan Power Ltd (2024) The Chamber’s Journal-January-P. 117 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Rectification order-No penalty proceedings or any other proceedings can be initiated under the assessment order which stand merged in the rectification order.[S. 154, Art. 226]

Kusharaj Madhav Bhandary v. ITO (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Barred by limitation-Issue raised in the revision proceedings are different from re-assessment issue under section 147 of the Act-Time limit to be ascertained from 143(1) order and not under section 147 of the Act-Order is barred by limitation.[S.143(1), 147, 148]

Indian Education Society v. CIT(E) (2024) Chamber’s Journal-December-P. 105 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Ex-parte order-Miscellaneous application is filed after four years-Six months time limit does not apply to the ex-parte order-Miscellaneous application is allowed-Order is recalled. [ITAT R.1963, R. 24]

Hajaram Purohit v.DCIT (2024) Chamber’s Journal-April-P. 111 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Appeal dismissed on account of low tax effect-Audit objection accepted by AO-Miscellaneous application of Revenue to recall the order is dismissed-On writ the Court held that appeal is maintainable-Order of Tribunal is set aside.[S. 254(2), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Hanubhai R.Sangoni (2024) 165 taxmann.com 300 (Guj)(HC)