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. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Share application money received in cash-Not loan or deposit-Penalty deleted.[S.269SS]

Dy. CIT v. James Hotels Ltd. (2025) 123 ITR 54 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 270A : Penalty-Under-reporting or misreporting of income-Excessive claim of interest expenditure-Mere disallowance on estimate-Not misrepresentation or suppression of facts-Penalty not leviable-Voluntary admission of income-Does not constitute under-reporting or misreporting-Penalty not leviable.[S.270A(9)]

Sushil Rajendra Kothari v. NFAC (2025) 123 ITR 121 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue Long-term capital gains-Reassessment completed after due enquiry-Principal Commissioner making no independent enquiry-Revision invalid-Purchase of immovable property wrongly treated as sale-Documentary evidence ignored-Revision invalid. [S.10(38), 45, 147]

Teena Garg (Smt.) v. Pr. CIT (2025) 123 ITR 326 / 174 taxmann.com 872 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Notice under section 143(2) not issued in prescribed format-Assessment invalid-Revision under section 263 without jurisdiction-CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23-6-2017.[S. 143(2), 143(3)]

Nadia District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2025) 123 ITR 178 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Protective assessment-Substantive assessment confirmed in another person’s case-Revision not sustainable-Order passed without considering assessee’s submissions-Violation of principles of natural justice-Revision quashed.[S. 143(3)]

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia v. Asst. CIT (2025) 123 ITR 702 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Cash credits-Additional evidence filed before Commissioner (Appeals) not considered-Remand report not called for-Matter restored for de novo assessment.[S.68, 69,R. 46A]

Jay Ved Agro Improve (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 123 ITR 363 / 174 taxmann.com 1072 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Undisclosed income-Construction and property development-On money-Seized diaries-Statement of senior sales manager-Extrapolation of receipt of on money-Addition was made on guesswork and surmises-Addition was deleted. [S. 131, 132, 133A]

Ganraj Homes LLP v. ACIT (2025) 123 ITR 630 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Search cases-Search assessment-Approval by Director General having jurisdiction over Central Charge-Sanction valid.-CBDT Notification No. 68 of 2014, dated 13-11-2014-Escaped income represented by asset exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs-Reopening not barred by limitation-Central Charge-Assignment outside faceless assessment scheme-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer competent to complete assessment-Seized diaries-Statement under section 132(4) admitting ownership-Subsequent plea that diaries belonged to family members rejected-Seized diaries-Tally books subsequently prepared not reliable-Profit to be determined from seized diaries-Land trading-Estimation of profit-Profit rate of 13.14 per cent. held reasonable-Share trading-Estimation of profit-Profit rate of 8 per cent. on total credits directed-Trading account (Maal Khaate)-Income estimated at 10 per cent. of total credits–Peak credit-Telescoping of income assessed in earlier years-Benefit allowable-Bad debts-Claim not reflected in seized diaries-Deduction not allowable–Accrued interest-Notional entries in seized diaries-Double taxation avoided-Addition deleted-Negative peak cash balance-Opening balances of earlier years to be considered-Matter restored-Miscellaneous cash transactions-Only undisclosed income taxable-Peak credit method upheld. [S.28(i), 36(1)(vii), 44AB,44AD, 69, 69A, 115BBE, 132, 132(4), 147, 148, 149(1)b), 153A]

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi v. Dy. CIT (2025) 123 ITR 387 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Change of opinion-Reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers-No fresh tangible material-Reopening invalid.[S. 40(a)(i),148, 195]

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 123 ITR 507 / 175 taxmann.com 427 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Disallowance under section 14A already deleted in assessee’s own case-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment invalid-Speculative transactions-No addition made on issue forming basis of reopening-Addition on other issues not permissible-Reassessment invalid. [S.14A,40A(2)(b), 43(5), 73 148, R. 8D]

Asst. CIT v. NK Proteins (P.) Ltd. (2025) 123 ITR 235 (Ahd.)(Trib.)