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. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Territorial jurisdiction- Rectification application filed by the Revenue to quash the order of Mumbai Tribunal on the ground that the Mumbai Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the appeal should have been filed before the ITAT at Pune is dismissed . [ S. 12A , 127 ]

Dy.CIT v. Heart Foundation of India ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-No notice were received-Sufficient and reasonable cause for non-attendance-Without providing sufficient time to reply cannot be treated as non-compliance u/s.272A(1)(d)-Penalty is deleted. [S. 272A(1)(d)]

Dhanraj Ramchandra Chandwani v. ITO (Pune)(Trib) (UR)

S. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-The penalty cannot be imposed when AO expresses satisfaction with the assessee’s compliance.[S. 272A(1)(d)]

Shilpa Shetty Kundra v. DCIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 342 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 271AAB:Peanlty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-
Assessment completed u/s. 143(3)-Addition made-Reopening u/s. 147-Again additions made-Two penalty proceedings for both addition-Merging of penalty is not valid-Not specifying the charge-Barred by limitation-Penalty order is quashed. [S. 274,275].

Panda Infratech Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2025) 233 TTJ 356 (Cuttack) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-No specific limb in penalty notice-Penalty order is set aside.[S. 274]

Sudesh Gupta v. ACIT. [2025] 121 ITR 1/ 210 ITD 436 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Depreciation-The Charitable trust voluntarily withdrew the depreciation claim, and there is no deliberate concealment or misrepresentation, penalty-Penalty is deleted.[S. 11, 32]

Mumbai Educational Trust v. DCIT (E) [2025] 210 ITD 608 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the limb of penalty-Penalty order is quashed and set aside. [S. 274]

Sudesh Gupta v. ACIT (2025) 210 ITD 436 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Income from other sources-Purchase of immoveable property-difference in actual sale price and the stamp duty value-Addition of total stamp duty value-Matter remanded to CIT for further verification. [S. 56(2)(x), 69A]

Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 393 (Surat) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Income from other sources-Interest-Zero coupon debentures redeemable after 9 years to its directors-Premature converted in to equity-Interest amount deemed to be received upon conversion of debentures in to equity shares in relevant assessment year-Revision order is justified. [S. 2(24)(iv) 47(x),47(x)(a), 49(2), 56v 145]

Sanjjay Saumyha (Mrs.) v. PCIT (2025) 210 ITD 337 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Outstanding GST-Revision order is affirmed-Registration and provision for warranty-Revision is not justified. [S. 14A,37(1) 43B]

Sophos Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 210 ITD 614 (Ahd.) (Trib.)