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. 69A: Unexplained money – Alleged on-money paid for purchase of flat – Addition based solely on statements of builder Cosmos Group and unverified Excel sheets seized during search – No incriminating material supplied to assessee – No opportunity of cross-examination – Addition deleted. [S. 132(4), 147, 148, 254(1)]

Prakash Bhaguji Katkade v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org .

S. 68: Cash credits – Cash deposits during demonetisation – Addition cannot be made merely because cash-in-hand as on 08.11.2016 was substantially higher than the preceding year when books of account were not rejected, sales were duly recorded, supported by stock records and accepted in VAT returns. Cash deposits out of recorded business receipts cannot be treated as unexplained money on suspicion alone. [S. 69A , 145(3)]

Paaneri Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( www.itatonline.org

S. 282: Service of notice-Income tax Appellate Tribunal-Speed post-Registered post-Envelope containing notice under section 148 was not returned back-Service of notice through personal service as specified by Order V rule 17 of CPC and Part II of section 282(i) was not validly made-The service of notice through the Income Tax Inspector was also not made upon the appellant by affixing the same on the address of the assessee in absence of personal service upon the assessee-Order passed by Tribunal is set aside-Interpretation of statutes: Rule of strict interpretation.[S. 142(1), 144, 147, 148, 254(1), 260A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order V rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Post Office Act, 2023, the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, the Post Office Rules, 2024, R. 2(1)(k), 58, 60, 62, General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 27, Indian Evidence Act 1872, S.114(f)]

Mahesh Gautam v. CIT (2025) 307 Taxman 207 (All.)(HC)

S. 281B: Provisional attachment-Provisional attachment order dated 1-6-2017 was valid for a period of six months as per section 281B(2) until 1-12-2017, and in the absence of any extension, the order ceased to have effect thereafter. [Art. 226]

Brijesh M. v. ITO (2025) 307 Taxman 91 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 279: Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-First offence-3 per cent compounding charges were leviable upon the petitioner and not 5 per cent. [S.279(2), Art. 226]

Sangeet Seth v. CCIT (2025) 307 Taxman 12 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Sentence of fine as imposed by ACMM was to be modified, and the company was sentenced to admonition. [S.278AA, 278B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 378]

ITO v. Great Indian Nautanki Co. (P.) Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 462 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 276 : Offences and prosecutions-Removal-Concealment-Transfer-Delivery-Property-Thwart recovery-Transfer of Car to daughter-in-law of director-Company was not made as accused-[S.278B, 281, Art. 226]

Nilesh Agarwal v. ITO (2025) 307 Taxman 512 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. [S.92CD(3) Art. 226 ]

Man Truck & Bus India (P.) Ltd. v. AUID (2025) 307 Taxman 101 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 268A: Appeal-Instructions-Monetary limits prescribed in CBDT Circulars would apply to pending appeals-Exceptions carved out by CBDT Circulars would apply only prospectively-Appeal of revenue dismissed.[S. 260A]

CIT (IT) v. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 62 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Share premium-Capital transaction-Second time on ground of inadequate enquiry-Tribunal, on examining the factual position and also noting the legal position, had granted relief to assessee-No question of law arose from order of Tribunal.[S.68, 143(3), 260A]

PCIT v. Anjaniputra Nirmal (P.) Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 45 (Cal.)(HC)