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.263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Non-performing assets – Loss on sale of NPAs – Co-operative bank – Assessment completed under section 143(3) after examination of relevant details – AO having adopted a possible view – Loss on sale of NPAs held allowable as business loss by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case – PCIT could not invoke revision merely for directing fresh enquiry or substitute his view for the view taken by AO – Revision order quashed. [ S. 2(14), 143(3), 144B .]

The Akola Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (Nag.)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org]

S.147A: Reassessment – Face less Assessment – Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148, 148A – Constitutional validity – Retrospective amendment – Section 147A introduced with retrospective effect from 1-4-2021 to provide that Assessing Officer for purposes of sections 148 and 148A would mean an Assessing Officer other than National Faceless Assessment Centre/assessment unit – Amendment seeking to neutralise judgments of constitutional Courts holding that notices under section 148 were required to be issued by faceless Assessing Officer – Legislature cannot directly overrule or set aside judgments of constitutional Courts without removing the basis of such judgments – Section 147A held unconstitutional and struck down – Notices under section 148 issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officers without random automated allocation and in faceless manner also quashed – Writ petitions allowed. [ Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 265 of the Constitution of India, S. 130, 144B(3 ) 147 , 148, 151A .]

Jyoti Sareen & Ors v. UOI (P&H)(HC) [www.itatonline.org]

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Accommodation entries -Revision under section 263 could not be exercised on the basis of a void reassessment order – Reassessment – Sanction – Jurisdictional condition – Assessment Year 2017-18 – Notice under section 148 issued on 29-07-2022, beyond three years from end of relevant assessment year – Approval obtained from Principal Commissioner under section 151(i), whereas section 151(ii) required approval from Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner – Sanction by authority not prescribed under applicable provision was a jurisdictional defect – Reassessment proceedings held void ab initio – Revisionary order quashed. [S. 147, 148, 148A, 151(i), 151(ii), 254 (1) ]

Anumita Infrastructure Private Limited v. PCIT-4 (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline .org .

S. 40(a)(i): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident –Royalty – Fees for technical services – Payments to foreign telecom operators – Voice termination, bandwidth and operation and maintenance services – Services rendered through sophisticated network and technology but assessee neither acquired equipment nor right to use any equipment/process – No technical knowledge or know-how made available – Payments not royalty or fees for technical services under applicable DTAAs – Recipients having no permanent establishment in India – Payments constituted business profits not taxable in India – No obligation to deduct tax under section 195 – Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) deleted – Revenue’s appeal dismissed. [ S.9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 90(2), 195 .]

DCIT v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited (Mum)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org]

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Capitalisation in books – Operational expenditure capitalised under CWIP in books but claimed as revenue expenditure for tax purposes – Assessee’s telecom business already commenced and was operational – Expenditure incurred towards interconnect charges, employee cost, professional fees, call-centre expenses, power and fuel, repairs and maintenance, network costs, selling and distribution expenses, customer service, etc. – No specific capital asset brought into existence – Accounting treatment not conclusive of tax character – Expenditure held allowable as revenue expenditure – Revenue’s appeal dismissed. [ S.32, 145 ]

DCIT v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited (Mum)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org]

S.143(1): Assessment – Intimation – Scrutiny assessment – Adjustment made under section 143(1) prior to completion of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) – Assessee did not file appeal against intimation under section 143(1) but challenged identical addition in appeal against assessment order under section 143(3) – Intimation under section 143(1) merges with subsequent scrutiny assessment order – CIT(A) justified in entertaining assessee’s ground and deleting addition – Revenue’s appeal dismissed. [ S. 143(2), 143(3) , 154, 250 .]

DCIT v. Leela Lace Holdings Private Limited (Mum)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org

S.54F: Capital gains- Investment in a residential house – Amalgamation of two adjacent flats – Assessee purchased one flat in his own name and another jointly in the names of his wife and son – Subsequently, two flats amalgamated into one composite residential unit under a registered supplementary agreement – Composite flat having a single entry and kitchen – Assessee having made substantial investment in both flats – Entitled to exemption under sections 54 and 54F – Revenue’s appeal dismissed. [ S. 45 , 54 , 250(4) , Rule 46A .]

DCIT v. Amit Mahendrakumar Mehta (Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Deletion of penalty by Tribunal-Prosecution under section 276C cannot survive where the Tribunal, on merits, deletes the penalty after finding no concealment. [S. 271AAB, 276C, 278E, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S 482, Art. 226]

Nagendra Choudhary v. UOI (2026) 348 CTR 369 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 276C: Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Sanction-Where tax sought to be evaded exceeds Rs. 25 lakhs, approval of the Principal CIT as sanctioning authority is sufficient for prosecution under section 276C-CBDT Circular No. 24 of 2019, Circular No. 5 of 2020.[S. 119(2)(b), 278E, 279, Art.14, 226]

Saumya Chaurasia v. UOI [2025] 181 taxmann.com 304 / (2026) 348 CTR 353 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Stay of proceedings-Tribunal has jurisdiction to stay the operation of an order appealed against even where no tax demand has arisen. [S. 12AB(4)(ii), Art. 226]

J&K Yateem Foundation v. ITAT (2026) 348 CTR 408 / 182 taxmann.com 199 (J&K & Ladakh)(HC)