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. 45 : Capital gains-Capital asset—Personal effects-Vintage car— Failed to provide evidence proving personal use of vintage car-Gain taxable as capital gains.[S. 2(14)]

Narendra I. Bhuva v. ACIT (2025) 177 taxmann.com 540 /347 CTR 549 (Bom)(HC)

S. 44AB : Audit of accounts-Business-Profession-Digital marketing—Digital marketing cannot be treated as profession-It should be treated as business—Turnover below 5 crores-Assessee was not therefore liable to file audit report in terms of proviso to s. 44AB(a).[S.28(i), Art. 226]

Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. ADIT (2025) 347 CTR 890 / 254 DTR 217 /177 taxmann.com 734 (Mad)(HC)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Dead horses-Capital assets-Insurance claim-Capital receipts cannot be assessed under section 41(1) of the Act.[S.45]

Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm v. CIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 308/ 347 CTR 504 / 254 DTR 73 (Bom)(HC)

S.14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Investments made and liquidated within year resulting in no opening or closing balances-Order of Tribunal deleting the ad hoc disallowance under section 14A at 10 percent of exempt income was affirmed. [S. 260A, R.8D]

PCIT v. Eygbs (India) (P) Ltd. (2025) 180 taxmann.com 681 / 347 CTR 280 / 254 DTR 385 (Karn)(HC)

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)