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.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Bad debt-Write-off of bad debt-Not required to be proven-Writ appeal allowed-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 36(1)(vii), 148,Art. 226]

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2025) 476 ITR 193 /173 taxmann.com 142 (Mad)(HC) Editorial : Decision of single judge in Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Dy. CIT(Mad)(HC)(SJ)(W.P.Nos. 36522 and 35630 of 2016 dt. 22-4-2021,) reversed.

S. 147 : Reassessment-Exchange, difference or net loss in foreign exchange transaction-Change of opinion-No tangible material-SLP of revenue dismissed, the delay of 181 was not satisfactorily explained and also on merits. [S. 143(3), 148, Form 15CA, Art. 136]

Dy. CIT v. Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. (2025) 476 ITR 160/304 Taxman 425 (SC) Editorial :Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (No. 1), (2025) 474 ITR 555 (Guj)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-High Court quashing directions of Dispute Resolution Panel and assessment order passed consequent thereto-SLP of revenue was dismissed.[S. 144C(2), Art. 136]

Dy. CIT v. Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt. Ltd(2025) 476 ITR 3/305 Taxman 411 (SC) Editorial : Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. DRP [2023] 156 taxmann. com 79/ 335 CTR 974 / (2024) 460 ITR 401 (Bom)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Non existing entity-Amalgamation-Order of DRP-Order of Tribunal annulling the assessment was affirmed. [S. 144C, 254 Companies Act, 1956, 391, 394.]

PCIT v. Vertex Customer Management India Pvt. Ltd.(2025) 476 ITR 475 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Resolution plan approved-No new claims by the revenue is maintainable-Order under section 143(3) of the Act was quashed and set aside. [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S. 31. Art. 226]

National Sewing Thread Company Ltd v Dy. CIT (2025) 476 ITR 40 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice-Failure to comply with provisions of section 143(2)-Draft and final assessment order Reassessment proceedings invalid-Notice and assessment orders quashed. 143(2), 147, 148, 153A, Art. 226]

Shaily Juneja v. ACIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 90 / (2025) 476 ITR 665 (Delhi)(HC) Primary Real Estate Investments v. Dy. CIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 90 / (2025) 476 ITR 665 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(1)(a) : Assessment-Intimation-Delayed depositing of contribution under employees welfare Acts-Disallowance set aside Revenue granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law. [S. 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 143(1)(a), 143(3) Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948-Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.]

Raj Kumar Bothra v. Dy. CIT (2025) 476 ITR 249 /174 taxmann.com 1199 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

S. 139: Return of income-Revised return declaring nil income-Cancellation of sale agreement-Revised accounts-Capital gains-Transfer-Immoveable properties-On appeal high Court was affirmed-Appeal of revenue dismissed. [S. 2(47), 45, 142, Art. 136]

CIT v. Lok Housing and Construction Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 366/ 175 taxmann.com 848 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd., (2015) 5 ITR-OL 235 / (2015) 58 taxmann.com 179 (Bom)(HC).

S. 132: Search and seizure-Reason to believe-Material considered was irrelevant and unrelated satisfaction note did not fulfil jurisdictional preconditions-Search proceedings were not legal-SLP of revenue was dismissed. [S. 132(1)(a) to (c), Art. 136]

DIT (In) v. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 367/175 taxmann.com 846 (SC) Editorial : Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra, DIT (2024) 299 Taxman 432 /340 CTR 82 / (2025) 475 ITR 331

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Power to condone delay in case of genuine hardship-Power to be exercised in judicious manner-Permitted to file the return of income claiming the refund-Assessing Officer was directed to allow the refund in accordance with law. [S.119(2)(b),139, Art 226]

Nileshkumar Uttamchand Rathod v. PCIT (2025) 476 ITR 62 (Guj)(HC)