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. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Procedure – Time bound disposal of appeals) – Delay in disposal of appeals – Pending for five years – Stipulation of one year period for disposal of appeal in provisions of section 250(6A) – Legislative intent – Inordinate delay would defeat objective of provision -If the appeal was not disposed within this period, the reasons for such delay must be explicitly recorded in the orders, so as to reflect whether the delay was attributable to the assessee or the Department and efforts should be made to decide the appeals maximum within a period of two years – Commissioner (Appeals) directed to decide appeal within three months from date of order of court – The Registry was directed to send a copy of this order to Union of India, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner (Central) for necessary compliance. [ S. 246A , 250(6A) , Art. 226.]

Kulwinder Paul Singh v .CBDT (2025) 475 ITR 371/ 173 taxmann.com 358 (P & H) (HC)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Procedure – Time bound -Pending for ten years – Directions issued for disposal of appeal within six months from the date of order of the court. [S. 246A, 250(6A) , Art. 226 ]

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd v. UOI (2025) 475 ITR 370 ( P & H) (HC)

Vivad se Vishwas I Relief for MSMEs Scheme, 2023.
(Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006.)

Reclassification of assessee as not micro or small or medium enterprise-Vivad se Vishwas I Scheme-Micro or small or medium enterprise-Eligibility for non-tax benefits-Entitled to avail of all non-tax benefits of category before reclassification for three years from date of reclassification. [Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006, S.9, 7, 8, Art.226]

Marine Electricals India Ltd v. UOI (2025) 474 ITR 239 (Bom)(HC)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

S. 34 : SARFAESI Act-Jurisdiction-DRT-Civil Court-Only DRT which would have exclusive jurisdiction to try such matters, to total exclusion of Civil Court. [S. 13, 17]

Regional Manager v. Punya Coal Road Lines [2023] 154 taxmann.com 599 (Bom)(HC)

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S.2(9) : Benami transaction-Availability of alternative remedy-Writ-Statutory appeal-Supreme Court-Observations of Division Bench on merits not to be treated as findings on merits. [S. 26(3), 46, Art. 136, Art. 226]

Advance Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Adjudicating Authority, (2025) 474 ITR 512 (SC) Editorial: The Division Bench’s decision in Adjudicating Authority v. Anuttam Academic Institutions (2022) 442 ITR 509 (Mad) is reversed.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
S. 5 : Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002-Attachment of property-Rights of secured creditor-Pending decision on validity of provisional attachment, interim arrangement was necessary to avoid wastage or encroachment. Sale proceeds were safeguarded with Court. [S.8]

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India [2023] 148 taxmann.com 399 (Bom)(HC)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
S. 14 : Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process-Moratorium-Jurisdiction of NCLT-NCLT cannot exercise jurisdiction over every issue concerning corporate debtor simply because corporate debtor is in insolvency, it is only those issues which arise solely out of insolvency of corporate debtor that can be adjudicated upon by NCLT under section 60(5)(c) [S. 60(5), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S.60]

Reliance Communication Ltd. v. Rajendra P. Bansal [2023] 146 taxmann.com 156 / 177 SCL 68 / 237 Comp Case 30 (Bom)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Delay was due to crisis in company-No mala fide intention of evasion on part-Prosecution after a lapse of more than three years quashed. [S.133A]

SVSVS Projects Pvt. Ltd v. State of Telangana and Another(2025) 474 ITR 306 /172 taxmann.com 14 (Telangana) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue dismissed, ITO v. SVSVS Projects (P.) Ltd (2025) 304 Taxman 271 / 474 ITR 312 (SC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Delay was due to crisis in company-No mala fide intention-Prosecution after a lapse of more than three years High Court quashing-Delay of 239 days-SLP dismissed on Supreme Court Special leave petition dismissed on ground of delay. [Art. 136]

ITO v. SVSVS Projects Pvt. Ltd. and others (2025) 474 ITR 312 /304 Taxman 271 (SC) Editorial : SVSVS Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Others v State of Telangana and Another(2025) 474 ITR 306 /172 taxmann.com 14 (Telangana) (HC)

S.271D: Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Share application money-Not a loan or deposit-Penalty under section 271D/271E deleted..[S. 269SS, 269T, 271E]

CIT v. Vamshi Chemicals Ltd [2024] 162 taxmann.com 906 / (2025) 474 ITR 422 (Cal)(HC)