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. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Disallowance is not attracted where there is no income exempt from tax-Disallowance is restricted to the extent of exempt income-Finance Bill, 2022, declaring that amendment to take effect from 1-4-2022 and accordingly applies in relation to assessment year 2022-2023 and subsequent assessment years-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [R.8D]

PCIT v. Alchemist Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 284 /(2026) 484 ITR 48 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. UNO Menda Ltd [2024] 167 taxmann.com 284 /(2026) 484 ITR 48 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Tribunal affirmed and applied proviso to section 2(15) to disentitle exemption under sections 11 and 12-Expenditure exceeded donations and no retention of income, but deficit of seven per cent-Proviso to section 2(15) not attracted and denial of exemption unsustainable.[S. 2(15), 12AA]

Give Foundation v. JCIT (2026) 484 ITR 602 /308 Taxman 38 (Guj)(HC)

S. 69: Unexplained investments – Unexplained jewellery- Search – Considering the assessee’s age, social status, occupation, family background and customary gifts received on various occasions, the Tribunal held the possession of 48.9 gms to be reasonable. Diamond and precious-stone-studded jewellery cannot be excluded from the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 merely because it contains diamonds or precious stones. Accordingly, the entire addition of Rs.3,86,186/- was deleted – Enhanced rate of 60% – Search conducted on 26-07-2016 – Amendment by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 – Enhanced rate applicable prospectively – Not applicable where search was conducted prior to 15-12-2016. [ S. 69A , 115BBE , 132 ]

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal v. ACIT( Nagpur ) ( Trib) www. Itatonline.org

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Powers- Award cost – Additional evidence – Conditional remand before the Assessing Officer -Demonetisation- Unexplained cash deposits, unsecured loans, sundry creditors and agricultural income – The assessee should, within one month from the date of the order, plant 500 trees and furnish documentary evidence thereof, or deposit the requisite cost with the NGO. [ S. 68 , 143(3) ]

Shri Ranbir Singh v. DCIT, Central-2 www.itatonline.org .

S. 151: Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice -Validity of unsigned approval- The approval under section 151 dated 30-3-2021 was unsigned, the Assessing Officer had no valid jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148; consequently, the notice under section 148 and all consequential proceedings were quashed- The Court also held that section 292BC, being applicable retrospectively from 1-4-2021, had no application to the approval granted on 30-3-2021. [ S. 148 , 282A(2), 292BC , Art . 226 ]

Nikhil Nagindas Modi v. Dy .CIT ( Bom) ( HC) www.itaonline.org

S.142(2A): Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Mandatory statutory procedure not followed-Assessment void ab initio.[S. 142(2C), 143(3) 145(3)]

Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 174 taxmann.com 170 / 234 TTJ 39 (UO) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 115BAB: Tax on new manufacturing domestic companies-Concessional tax rate-Manufacturing company-Option once exercised continues for subsequent years-Adjustment under section 143(1) not permissible without opportunity of hearing. [S.143(1)]

GFCL EV Products Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2025] 180 taxmann.com 17 / 128 ITR 1 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Working capital adjustment-Comparables selected by Transfer Pricing Officer-Matter remanded-Adjustment on overdue receivables consequential.[S.92CA]

Schneider Electric IT Business India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2025] 181 taxmann.com 342 / 128 ITR 57 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 56: Income from other sources-Immovable property-Stamp duty valuation to be adopted as on date of allotment-Addition deleted.[S. 56(2(vii)(b)]

Sudha Agrawal v. ITO (2025) 175 taxmann.com 64 / 234 TTJ 140 (UO) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S.43B: Deductions on actual payment-Customs duty paid under protest-Refund offered to tax in subsequent year-Disallowance would result in double taxation-Deduction allowable-Addition was deleted. [S. 143(3)]

Keysight Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2025] 181 taxmann.com 103 / 128 ITR 51 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)