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. 281 : Certain transfers to be void-Priority of claim-Sale of property for dues of State Sales-tax Department— Provision of S. 26B of KGST Act, by virtue of the non obstante clause, excludes the operation of “any other law in force” and creates a first charge on the property of the dealer-The properties in possession of the petitioners cannot be proceeded against for realization of the arrears payable under the IT Act. [S. 222, Sch. II, R, 2& 16, Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, S. 26B]

Job G. Oommen v. UOI [2024] 169 taxmann.com 407 / (2025) 342 CTR 315 / 245 DTR 153 (Ker)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Revised return-After survey-Additional income—Order of Tribunal confirming the penalty is affirmed. [S. 139(5), 260A]

Dr. S. Duraisamy v. DCIT (2025) 342 CTR 668 / (2024) 243 DTR 210 (Mad)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-The AO had made all inquiries and verifications as required under the law-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed-No substantial question of law.[S. 143(3), 260A]

PCIT v. Dharam Singh (2025) 342 CTR 653 / 245 DTR 369 (All)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Sufficient opportunity was provided-Writ petition is dismissed-If the assessee deposits 20 per cent of the assessed tax, the stay application shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of filing of the appeal before Tribunal and stay application.[S. 253, Art. 226.

C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan v. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 397/ (2025) 342 CTR 684 / (2024) 244 DTR 295 (Ker)(HC) Editorial : C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan v.CIT [2024] 169 taxmann.com 136 / (2025) 342 CTR 678 / (2024) 244 DTR 289 (Ker)(HC), division bench modified the condition of deposit of 20 per cent.

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Sufficient opportunity was provided-Order of single judge dismissing the writ petition is affirmed-Order is modified to the extent to remit 20 per cent of the disputed tax as a precondition for filing a stay petition along with the appeal before the Tribunal.[S. 220(6), 250(4), Art. 226]

C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan v. CIT [2024] 169 taxmann.com 136 / (2025) 342 CTR 678 / (2024) 244 DTR 289 (Ker)(HC) Editorial : C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan v. CIT (2025) 342 CTR 684/ (2024) 244 DTR 295 (Ker)(HC), is modified.

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Appeal filed manually-Dismissal of appeal-Appellate authority is directed to take into consideration the date of filing of the manual appeal for the purposes of calculating and appreciating the issue of delay in respect of the appeal preferred online. [S. 250, Art.226]

Electron Volt Renewables (P) Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 168 taxmann.com 378 / (2025) 342 CTR 357 / 245 DTR 134 (AP)(HC)

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds-Directed to refund the amount with interest.[R. 31A,Form No 26B, Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, S. 5, 6, 7, Art. 226]

Dish TV India Ltd. v CIT (2025) 342 CTR 430 / 245 DTR 438 (All) (HC)

S. 237 : Refunds-Delay in payment—Laxity of Department—Strictures-Refund of tax amount if any, ought to be immediately granted to assessee-Delayed payment of refunds burdens the public exchequer-Rules would be required to be framed-Accountability is required to be fixed. [S. 239, 244A, Art. 226]

Bloomberg Data Services (India) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 342 CTR 249 / 245 DTR 9 / 302 Taxman 454 (Bom)(HC)

S. 158BC : Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Evidence collected and noticed during the search can be considered for assessment-Cross examination of parties-Ghost of benami companies-Assessment order is correctly assessed-No substantial question of law.[S. 158BB, 260A]

CIT v Mange Ram Mittal [2024] 168 taxmann.com 306/ (2025) 482 ITR 130 / 342 CTR 1 / 245 DTR 49 (P&H)(HC) Editorial : Mange Ram Mittal v. ACIT (2006) 103 TTJ 594(SB) (Delhi) (Trib) is affirmed.

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Assessee has accepted the disallowance-Issue is not debatable-Order of Tribunal affirming the order of CIT(A) is affirmed. [S. 14A, 260A]

Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. v CIT (2025) 342 CTR 697 / 245 DTR 347 / 302 Taxman 397 (Telangana)(HC)