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. 12AB: Procedure for fresh registration-Application filed under wrong provision-Old trust-Inadvertent mistake in filing the application under wrong sub-cl. (iv) of s. 12A(1)(ac), which cannot be said be intentional/ deliberate and done with mala fide intention-CIT(E) was directed to grant the exemption. [S.12A]
Prem Educational Trust v. ITO (E) (2025) 237 TTJ 373 / 176 taxmann.com 672 (Chennai) Trib)
S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Belated filing of Form No. 10B-Revenue was not justified in denying the benefit of exemption-AO is directed to take on record both the audit reports filed for respective assessment years, treat them as filed in compliance with provisions of s. 12A(1)(b) and then assess the total income of the assessee after giving effect to the provisions of ss. 11 and 12.[S. 12, 12A,139(4A), Form No 10B]
Chinmaya Seva Trust v. DCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 349 / 174 taxmann.com 214 (Panaji)(Trib)
S. 9(1)(vi): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-supply of software and related services-Not royalty-Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India-Ireland.[S.90, 195, Art. 12(3)]
Munich Re Automation Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 237 TTJ 928 / 178 taxmann.com 500 (Delhi) Trib)
S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Non-resident-Accrual of income-Credit amount standing in foreign bank account of non-resident assessee-Bank accounts with HSBC, Geneva-Merely having a property in India or for that matter, an address in India is too simplistic a basis to hold that deposits placed outside India can be brought to tax in India-DRP acknowledges the fact that there is no direct evidence of any business activity in India-No justifiable basis for bringing to tax the amount standing credit in the name of the non-resident assessee in the foreign bank account-Addition was deleted. [S.5(2), 147, 148]
Pratab Gulabrai Tulsiani & ORS. v. ACIT (IT) (2025) 237 TTJ 388 / 177 taxmann.com 151 (Mum)(Trib)
S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure -Bogus Purchases — Addition based on estimation cannot be made without rejection of books of account. Assessee produced invoices, e-way bills, ledger accounts and bank statements, and Revenue failed to establish purchases as bogus; the entire addition was deleted. [S. 37(1),145(3) ]
Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta v. Dy. CIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonine.org
S.69A: Unexplained Money — Protective addition – under section Gold bullion found during search -Not sustainable where ownership stood admitted by company and bullion was duly recorded in books of account of the company . [S. S.132(4), S.143(3)]
Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta v. Dy. CIT (Mum.)(Trib www.itatonline.org
S. 153A: Assessment – Search – HSBC Geneva accounts- In absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessments – Foreign bank account additions based merely on the Base Note received from the French Government and not on search material were unsustainable – Addition under section 69A also deleted as Revenue failed to establish assessee’s ownership of foreign bank accounts. [S. 69A, 132, 143(1), 143(2), 147, 148, 153A]
Pr. CIT v. Arunkumar Ramniklal Mehta (Bom.)(HC) www.itatonline.org .
S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Powers-Practice and Procedure – Authorised representative -Virtual Hearing – Dress Code – Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with SOP.[S. 288, R. 49 , ITAT R, 1963 , 17A ]
Gudari Large Sized Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd. v. ITO ( Cuttack)( Trib) www.itatonline.org .
S.271D: Penalty]-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit]-Cash received from buyer of immovable property-The applicability of amended provisions by Finance Act, 2015 has taken effect from 1st June, 2015-Agreement to sell was entered on 31st Jan., 2015, and registered sale deed was executed on 31st May, 2016-Penalty not leviable. [S. 269SS]
Bhavanishanker Naik v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 240 (Bang)(Trib)
S.271D: Penalty]-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit]-Immovable property-Amount received for providing additional amenities in the houses sold by the builder-Definition of consideration for transfer of immovable property referred to in s. 194-IA cannot be applied to consideration received for additional amenities]-Penalty was deleted. [S. 132(4), 194IA, 269SS]
DCITv. Tapadiya Construction Ltd. (2025) 236 TTJ 216 (Pune)(Trib)