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. 69C: Unexplained expenditure – Alleged bogus purchases – Estimate of 12% of alleged bogus expenses are affirmed – Pr. CIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd ( 2025) 474 ITR 175 / 172 Taxman.com 283 (Bom)( HC) distinguished . [ S. 37(1))
J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline.org .
S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure – Alleged out of books Murrum expenses – Where cash expenditure relates to business operations and its incurrence is not disputed, addition under section 69C cannot be made for the entire amount- Estimation of profit element is justified. Addition restricted to 5% of such expenses. [ S. 132 ]
J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum)(Trib)
S. 69A : Unexplained money – Alleged investment of unaccounted cash receipts in immoveable properties – The Tribunal held that without tangible evidence of investment, addition under section 69A on account of alleged purchase of immovable property is not justified. Addition deleted .
J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum)(Trib)
S. 69A : Unexplained money – Alleged unaccounted cash sales from Scrap and Piling business- Addition of gross receipts is not justified- Applying an average profit rate of 8.56% on such cash receipts is held to be reasonable – Order of CIT( A) is affirmed . [S.115BBE ]
J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum) ( Trib)
S.37(1): Business expenditure – Salary paid to staff/ spouse and professional fees – Disallowance is restricted to 30% .[ S. 40(a)(ia),143(3) ]
J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum) ( Trib)
S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes- Profits and gains from housing projects – Condonation of delay – Genuine hardship- Delay in filing of return of income – Genuine hardship – Claim for deduction under section 80IBA – Delay of 45 days due to illness of managing partner – Rejection not justified. [S. 80IBA , 119(2(b), 139, Art. 226 ]
Western Arch Developers v. Pr. CIT (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline .org .
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Assessment order which is nullity in law – Cannot be revised. [S. 132A, 143(3)]
Piyush Kumar Choubey v. P CIT (2023) 221 TTJ 17 (UO) (Raipur) (Trib)
S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Faceless assessment – Notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer – On writ the Court set aside the notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom- Honourable Court has granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the order simply by moving a Praecipe before this Court- The Court also observed that once the Petition is revived and restored, the same would have to be decided on its own merits considering that several other issues are also raised in challenging the Notice issued under Section 148 [ S. 148 ,Art. 226 ]
Caishen Enterprise LLP v. ACIT(2025) 176 taxmann.com 471 ( Bom)( HC) . www.itatonline.org
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- ITAT has not dealt with the issue of Document Identification Number (DIN) – Failure to decide Cross objection –Search – Assessment order without – Not uploaded on portal before limitation – Violation of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dt. 14 th August , 2019 –Bogus purchases – Un secured loan – Assessment was not uploaded on Portal before the expiry of limitation- Screen shots – Miscellaneous application was rejected by the ITAT – Order of the ITAT on merit is set aside – Matter remanded to ITAT to decide afresh. [S. 68, 132, 153A, 254(1) 254(2), 260A , IT Rules , 1963 ,47(2) Form No .36A ]
Skyway Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (2025) (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org Editorial : Skyway Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT ( ITA Nos . 2665 /Mum 2022 dt 28 -2 -223 )( Mum) ( Trib)
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016 .
S. 7: Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process – Limitation – Acknowledgement of debt – Balance sheet entries – Validity of acknowledgment under S. 18 of the Limitation Act even where name of creditor is not specifically mentioned – Liberal interpretation – Prior financial statements and cash flow disclosures may be relied on – Substantive jural relationship and continuing liability inferred – COVID-19 extension – Applicability of Para 5(I) of Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022 – Entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 to be excluded – Application filed in 2024 held to be within limitation – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted to NCLT for adjudication on merits.
[ S. 238A; Limitation Act, 1963, S. 18, Companies Act, 2013, S. 134, Sch. III; Art. 137, First Schedule, Art. 141 ]
IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 911.www.itatonline .org