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. 11: Property held for charitable purposes – Delay in filing Form No. 10BB – Audit report filed before processing of return under section 143(1) – Delay is procedural – Exemption cannot be denied. [ S. 12, 12AA ,139(1), 143(1), R. 17B, Form No. 10BB ]

Shri Sadguru Dada Maharaj Sangavadekar Seva Pratishthan v. ITO (E) (Pune)(Trib.)www.itatonline.org

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Notice issued after three years solely on the basis of information available on ITBA/INSIGHT Portal – Property jointly purchased – Assessee’s share below ₹50 lakh – Failure to verify registered sale deed before issuing notice – Reassessment held to be without jurisdiction- CBDT Circular F. No. 299/10/2022-Dir(Inv.III)/647, dated 22-08-2022)[ S. 119, 147,148 , 148A(b), 148A(d) , 149(1)(b) ]

Annamma Samkutty v. ITO (Pune)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org

S. 68: Cash credits – Long-term capital gains on sale of shares –Penny stocks- Sunrise Asian Ltd. (formerly Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd.) Exemption cannot be denied merely on suspicion – Purchase and sale through banking channels, demat account and recognised stock exchange – In absence of evidence connecting assessee with alleged accommodation entries, addition under section 68 not sustainable.[ S. 10 (38), 45, 69C ]

Amita Rambilas Agarwal v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib www.itatonline.org

S.80IA: Industrial undertakings – Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development -Initial assessment year – Assessee entitled to choose first year for claiming deduction – Earlier years’ unabsorbed depreciation already absorbed cannot be notionally brought forward-CBDT Circular No. 1/2016 [ S.80IA(2), 80IA(5), 119, 260A ]

Pr. CIT v. The Tata Power Company Ltd. (Bom. HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 4: Charge of income-tax -Capital or revenue receipt – Pre-commencement receipts – Income earned during trial runs and sale of scrap before installation of project – Receipts inextricably connected with setting up of project – Capital receipts – Not taxable.[ S. 28(i), 80IA, 145 , 260A ]

Pr. CIT v. The Tata Power Company Ltd. (Bom. HC) www.itatonline.org

S.144C. Assessment – Eligible assessee – Non-resident – Draft assessment order mandatory – Failure to issue draft order before passing final assessment order renders assessment void ab initio- Best judgment assessment – Return filed and notices substantially complied with – Invocation of section 144 invalid – Jurisdiction – Non-resident assessee – Assessment completed by officer lacking jurisdiction – Objection not barred by section 124(3) in faceless assessment proceedings- Reassessment – Addition based on erroneous information in Form 26AS – Assessee explaining duplicate reporting and source of investment – Assessment completed without considering evidence – Order quashed without remand. [S. 56 , 69, 124(3), 144,144C(1), 144C(15)(b)(ii), 147, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226 ]

Sanket Vinayak Nagvekar v. ITO (Bom.)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

S. 36(1)(vii): Bad debts – Write off – Mere provision not allowable after 1-4-1989 – However, where the assessee debits the amount to the Profit & Loss Account, correspondingly reduces the debtor/sundry debtors account and, due to pendency of recovery litigation, does not formally close the individual debtor’s ledger account, there is an effective write-off and deduction cannot be denied. [S. 41(4)) ]

Madhusudan Babubhai Kocha v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty -Concealment-Concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars -Failure to specify exact charge -Penalty not sustainable. [. 68]

Girdharilal Motilal Agrawal v. ITO (2025) 128 ITR 309 (Nagpur)(Trib.).

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty -Concealment-Not specifying the Charge-Cash deposits treated as unexplained under section 68 for want of documentary evidence -Explanation found bona fide -Penalty order not specifying applicable limb -Penalty was deleted.[S.274]

Girdharilal Motilal Agrawal v. ITO [2025] 128 ITR 309 (Nagpur)(Trib)

S. 270A: Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Bona fide belief regarding taxability -Reasonable cause-Voluntary offer of income during assessment/reassessment -Penalty not leviable. (S. 271(1)(c))]

IBM Canada Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 128 ITR 656 (Bang.)(Trib.).