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. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Interest subsidy-Technology upgradation fund scheme-Ground raised first time-Issue is restored to the AO for fresh adjudication as per provisions of law [S. 2(24)(xviii)]

Chirpal Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 229 TTJ 87 (UO) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Accrual of income-Commission-Service charges receivable from State Government-Auditors report stating under reporting of income-Liable to be taxed on accrual basis. [S. 5, 145]

ACIT v. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 962 / (2024) 229 TTJ 415 / 241 DTR 233 (Raipur)(Trib)

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)