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. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Furnishing inaccurate particulars-Defective notice-Mere disallowance of claim not sufficient-Penalty deleted.[S. 147, 148, 274]

Pradeep Garg v. ITO (2025) 126 ITR 91 / 175 taxmann.com 44 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Licence fee-Interest on delayed payment-Capital or revenue expenditure-Bona fide claim-Penalty not leviable. [S. 35ABB]

Asst. CIT v. Vodafone West Ltd (2025) 126 ITR 335 / 173 taxmann.com 585 (Delhi)(Trib.) ACIT v. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (2025) 126 ITR 335 / 173 taxmann.com 585 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 270A: Penalty-Under-reporting or misreporting of income-Notice not specifying exact charge-Penalty invalid-Employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESI-Issue debatable at relevant time-Penalty not leviable-Ad hoc disallowance of expenditure-Estimated addition-Penalty not leviable.[S.270A(2)(a), 270A(9)]

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2025) 126 ITR 653 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Weighted deduction for scientific research-Assessee furnished all requisite particulars-Revision not justified.
[S. 35(2AB), 143(3), R. 6]

Genus Power Infrastructures Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2025) 126 ITR 397 (Lucknow)(Trib.)

S. 254 (1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Delay of 1,566 days-Wrong legal advice-Delay condoned.[S. 253]

Ajay Parasmal Kothari v. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 570 / (2025) 126 ITR 511 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 154: Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESI-Deposit beyond due date under respective Acts-Disallowance upheld.
[S.36(1)(va) 43B, 139(1), 154]

Zephyrsun Electro Mech (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 126 ITR 493 (Jodhpur)(Trib.)

S. 153D: Assessment-Search-Approval-Mechanical and omnibus approval for seven assessment years-Assessment quashed.[S.153A]

Inder Chand Bajaj v. Dy. CIT (2025) 126 ITR 500 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 153D: Assessment-Search-Approval-Quasi-judicial function-Mechanical approval without application of mind-Assessment quashed.[S. 153A]

S. P. Singla Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 126 ITR 536 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 153D: Assessment-Search-Approval-Composite approval for seven assessment years-No independent application of mind-Assessment quashed.[S.153A]

Kehar Singh v. Dy. CIT (2025) 126 ITR 609 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 153D: Assessment-Search-Approval-Consolidated approval for seven assessment years-Mechanical approval-Assessment quashed.[S.153A]

Apple Commodities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 126 ITR 623 / 179 taxmann.com 552 (Delhi)(Trib.)