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. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cash credits-Cash deposit-Demonetisation-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 68, 143 (3), 260A]

Hemalatha Rajan v. Dy. CIT (2025) 302 Taxman 229 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Transfer of shares-Capital gains-Colourable device-Dividend distribution tax-Merely recipient of income and was not entity which had either declared or paid dividend, revisionary proceedings were not justified-DTAA-India-Singapore [S. 45, 47(iv), 115-0, 260A, Art. 13]

CIT v. Genpact Consulting Singapore PTE Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 470(Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Commercial substance-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Order of the Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 260A, Art. 12]

CIT v. Zebra Technologies Asia Pacific Pet. Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 380 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital asset-Solitary transaction-Sold without development-Assessing Officer accepted the claim as capital gains-Two plausible view-Order of High Court quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 2(14), 45, Art. 136]

CIT v. Embassy Brindavan Developers (2025) 302 Taxman 362 (SC) Editorial : Embassy Brindavan Developers v.CIT (2023) 291 Taxman 188/ 457 ITR 234 (Karn)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Order passed by Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Tribunal-Subsequently set aside by High Court-Revision is not valid-Order of High Court is affirmed. [S. 32, 143(3), Art. 136]

CIT, LTU v. Canara Bank (2025) 302 Taxman 369 (SC) Editorial : CIT, LTU v. Canara Bank (2021) 277 Taxman 215 (Karn)(HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal-Stay-No coercive or precipitative steps had been taken by revenue-Stay petition cannot be dismissed as premature-Matter remanded to the Tribunal to decide on merits. [S. 92C, Art.226]

Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 302 Taxman 537 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation-Appellate Tribunal has no power to condone the delay-The Appellate Tribunal being a creature of the Statute cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond what is expressly conferred on it under the Statute-Order of Tribunal is set aside. [S.254(1), 260A]

Knowell Realtors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 302 Taxman 433 / 482 ITR 423 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Disciplinary proceedings against Commissioner (Appeals)-Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer-Delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against respondent, six months prior to retirement of respondent, was fatal-Writ petition of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 226]

UOI v. Vinay Kumar (2025) 302 Taxman 280 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 244A : Refund-Interest on refunds-Wrong PAN Number by the Depositor-The Revenue cannot be responsible-Not entitle to interest on refunds. [S.194C, Form No 16A, Art. 226]

Surya Construction v. UOI (2025) 302 Taxman 387 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 234C : Interest-Deferment of advance tax-COVID-19 pandemic-Dismissal of waiver application is set aside-Matter remanded to CCIT for a denovo consideration. [S.208, 209, Art. 226]

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Chief CIT (Central) (2025) 302 Taxman 194 (Bom.)(HC)