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. 10(26AAA): Income of Sikkimese-Individual-Constitutional validity-—Expression “Sikkimese” has been defined only for the purpose of the Explanation to S. 10(26AAA)-Order of High Court dismissing the petition affirmed. [Art. 136, 271F(k)]

Doma T. Bhutia v. UOI (2025) 347 CTR 114 / 307 Taxman 4 (SC) Editorial :affirmed, Dr. Doma T. Bhutia v. UOI (2025) 343 CTR 652 / 172 taxxmmann.com 293 (Sikkim)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Sales tax exemption from State Government-Subsidy held to be capital receipt, and High Court order on that issue affirmed-Income accrual-Duty drawback-Income does not accrue merely on export; Tribunal was justified in remanding matter for limited verification whether claim was accepted by authorities in relevant year-High Court erred in interfering with remand-Tribunal’s order restored.[S. 5, Art. 136]

CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2025) 305 Taxman 4 / 347 CTR 109 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(IT Appeal No. 250 of 2005 dt. 7-12-2017) (Delhi)(HC)

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 2(8) : Benami property-Authorities concerned could not initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to coming into force of 2016 Act viz. 25-10-2016-SLP dismissed-Review petition is also dismissed. [S. 3, 5, Art. 136]

Dy. Director of Income-tax (BPU Unity) v. Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (2025) 305 Taxman 418 (SC) Editorial : Dy. Director of Income-tax (BPU Unity) v. Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (2025)174 taxxmann.com 693 (SC) affirmed, Governrmrnt of NCT of Delhi v.K.L. Rathu Steels Ltd (2024) 7 SCC 315, followed.

S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Unexplained expenditure-Accommodation entries-Tax effect was below ₹2 crores threshold as stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17-09-2024-Appeal dismissed. [S. 69C, 260A]

PCIT (Central) v. Garg Acrylic Ltd. (2025) 305 Taxman 91 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 292BB : Notice of demand to be valid in certain circumstances-Notice under section 142(1) at its email ID-notices were sent to assessee at email address as available at website of MCA-Participated in inquiry relating to assessment-Precluded from raising any objection that notice was not served or was served in an improper manner-The provisions of section 292BB would be applicable-Petition was dismissed. [S. 142(1), 143(3), 282(2), ITATRules,127, Art. 226]

Kalkajee Kraft Paper (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, ITD (2025) 305 Taxman 261 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 278AA : Offences and prosecutions-Reasonable cause-For failure to deposit TDS-No punishment-Order of the Trial Court acquitted the respondents primarily on the ground that the respondents had satisfactorily demonstrated the existence of a ‘reasonable cause’ for the delay in depositing TDS, within the meaning of section 278AA-High Court affirmed. [S.201(IA), 234E, 276B, 278E, 279 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 378(4)]

ITO v. MKY Constructions (P.) Ltd. (2025) 305 Taxman 507 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Willful attempt to evade tax-Bailable nature-Magistrate had mechanically passed order issuing non-bailable warrant against petitioner in a bailable offence-Order was quashed and set aside. [S. 276(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 428, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 S. 528]

Arjun Amarjeet Rampal v. Income-tax Department (2025) 305 Taxman 384 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 271E : Penalty-Repayment of loan or deposit-Reasonable cause had been shown by assessee for non-compliance with provisions contained in section 269T and transaction was genuine and bona fide, assessee was not liable to pay penalty under section 271E for non-compliance of section 269T. [S. 269T, 273B]

Sandeep Kaur Gill v. UOI (2025) 305 Taxman 223 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal-Application-Instructions-Tax effect of losses of earlier years which were not permitted to be carried forward was not to be taken into account to determine overall tax effect for purpose of filing appeal by revenue. [S.260A]

CIT, IT v. SIS Live (2025) 305 Taxman 212 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Property held for charitable purposes-Since there was no discussion or finding on 34 questions raised under section 142(1), Assessing Officer should be taken as having accepted assessee’s explanation-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 11,12, 142(1), 260A]

CIT v. Vellore Institute of Technology (2025) 305 Taxman 450 (Mad)(HC)