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. 28(i) : Business income-Income from other sources-Fixed deposit interest-Short term deposit for opening LC or other business purposes-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer-Order of High Court is affirmed.[S. 56, Art. 136]
XL India Business Services (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 302 Taxman 11 (SC) Editorial: XL India Business Services (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 94 taxmann.com 720 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 17(2) : Salary-Perquisite-Rent-free or concessional rent accommodations-Claim of assessee that perquisite value of Rent-free or concessional rent accommodations should be computed under Rule 3 considering its employees at par with Central Government employees is rejected-Proceedings under Sections 201 and 201(1A) were to be quashed, as assessee had made a bona fide estimate of perquisite value consistent with a similar ruling for another CSIR unit-SLP of the assessee is dismissed. [S. 15, 201, 201(IA), R. 3, Art. 136]
Central Food Technological Research Institute v. ITO (TDS) (2025) 302 Taxman 181 (SC) Editorial : Central Food Technological Research Institute v. ITO (TDS) (2024)168 taxmann.com 664 (Karn)(HC)
S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-Non-resident company-Sales commission-Not in nature of Fee for Included Services (FIS)-DTAA-India-USA. [S.260A, Art. 12]
CIT v. Laserwords US Inc. (2025) 302 Taxman 216 (Mad)(HC)
S. 5 : Scope of total income-Interest on Government Securities-Right to receive interest on Government securities vested in assessee only on due date mentioned in securities and could not be said to have accrued to assessee on any date other than dates stipulated therein-Delay of 364 days-SLP of Revenue is dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 145, 245C, 245D, Art. 136]
ITSC v. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 270 (SC) Editorial : Indusind Bank Ltd v. ITSC (2023) 152 taxmann.com 489/ 456 ITR 376(Bom)(HC)
S. 5 : Scope of total income-Interest on Government Securities-Right to receive interest on Government securities vested in assessee only on due date mentioned in securities and could not be said to have accrued to assessee on any date other than dates stipulated therein-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 145, 245C, 245D, Art. 136]
ITSC v. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 423 (SC) Editorial : Indusind Bank Ltd v. ITSC (2024) 169 taxmann.com 588 (Bom)(HC)
S. 5 : Scope of total income-Accrual of income-High Court held that interest can be said to have accrued only on date on which it was due as per terms and conditions of security-Interest income on securities is to be taxed on due basis and not on accrual basis-Delay of 220 days-SLP dismissed on the ground that reasons assigned for condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient. [S. 145, Art. 136.
Jt. CIT v. State Bank of Hyderabad (2025) 302 Taxman 417 (SC) Editorial : State Bank of Hyderabad v. JCIT (2024) 169 taxmann.com 416 (Telangana)(HC)
S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Accumulated profits-Profits disclosed would be subject to adjustment and depreciation as granted in accordance with rates prescribed by Income-tax Act have to be deducted for ascertaining accumulated profits.[S. 32, 143(1), 148]
Babulal Jain v. ITO (2025) 302 Taxman 392 (Telangana)(HC)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
S. 12 : Punishment for contempt of court-Dy. CIT, Range-2, Lucknow (now retired) to be guilty under s. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Accordingly, a fine of Rs. 25,000 along with simple imprisonment for a period of one week is awarded to the contemnor-Dy. CIT, Range-2, Lucknow (now retired)—In case of default, he would suffer one day’s further simple imprisonment. [S.124(2), 127, Art. 226]
Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani, DYCIT [2024] 165 taxmann.com 471 / (2025) 342 CTR 53 / (2024) 244 DTR 1 (All)(HC)
Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020
S. 2(1)(j):Disputed tax—Additional ground of appeal— Non search case-Computation could not be @ 125 per cent but had to be @ only 100 per cent-Competent authority is directed to accept the form as claimed by the assessee. [S. 2(1)(n), 3, ITAct, S. 10(38), 45, 68, Art.226]
Umesh Navnitlal Shah (HUF) v. ITO (2025) 342 CTR 563 / 245 DTR 425 / 170 taxmann.com 674 (Bom)(HC)
Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
S. 2(1)(j): Disputed tax-Pendency of appeal-Rejection of declaration-Pendency of review petition-Review petition will also partake the character of pending proceedings and therefore the assessee should not have been non-suited or treated as ineligible for claiming benefit under DTVSV Act—Impugned order is hereby set aside—Respondent is directed to accept the revised declaration form filed by the assessee and process the same in accordance with DTVSV Act, 2020 and pass requisite orders in terms thereof. [S. 2(1)(a)(i), Art. 226]
NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. v. ITD [2024] 169 taxmann.com 85 / (2025) 342 CTR 502 / 245 DTR 163 / (Delhi)(HC)