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.147: Reassessment]-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-The essential conditions precedent to invoke the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment are absent-Consequently, issuance of notice under s. 148 is ab initio void.[S. 143(3), 148]

Pachamuthu Ravi v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 961 (Chennai)(Trib)

S.147: Reassessment]-After the expiry of four years-Information from the Addl. Director of IT(I&CI)-Interest income]-Excess loss of inventory in respect of obsolete stock-Reassessment was held to be valid. [S. 115JB, 148]

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 699 / 174 taxmann.com 238 (Hyd) Trib)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Non-resident-Draft assessment order-Validity of assessment]-Eligible assessee]-[S.144C(15)(b), 147, 148]

Anantula Vijay Mohan v. DCIT(2025) 236 TTJ 312 / 174 taxmann.com 1002 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 143(3): Assessment]-Limited scrutiny-Conversion of limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny without prior approval-Cash deposit-AO was obliged to take the specific permission of the Principal CIT before expanding the scope of enquiry to cover the credits in the assessee’s bank account-Failure to do so is a clear violation of the CBDT Instruction No. F. No. 225/402/2018/ITA.II, dt. 28th Nov., 2018-The addition made by him is not sustainable-Cash credit]-Reconciliation was filed]-Addition was deleted. [S.68]

Bindu Kumar v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 838 (Lucknow)(Trib)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Limited scrutiny-Addition made on other issues-AO exceeded his jurisdiction in disallowing the capital loss and determining the business loss by allowing set-off against capital gain-The order of the AO is set aside.[S. 45, 143(2)]

Anantula Vijay Mohan v. DCIT(2025) 236 TTJ 312 / 174 taxmann.com 1002 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 115JB: Company-Book profit]-Method of accounting-Provision for loss of inventory-Diminution in value of asset-Any reduction in the value of inventory is to be added back to book profit computed in terms of s. 115JB(2)-Addition is affirmed. [S.115JB(2), 145]

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 699 / 174 taxmann.com 238 (Hyd)(Trib)

S.115BAC: Tax on income of individuals and Hindu undivided family]-Assessment]-Non-filing of Form No.10-IE-Claiming the benefit of option-The denial of exercise of this option in the relevant year for failure to file Form No. 10-IE is not in accordance with law. [S.115BAC(5), Form No-10-IE]

Arun Gopilal SamnanI v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 258/ 174 taxmann.com 33 (Ahd)(Trib) Bhargavkumar Parsottambhai Patel (HUF) v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 258/ 174 taxmann.com 33 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 92C: Transfer pricing]-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Advertisement, marketing and sales promotion (AMP) expenses-TP adjustment made on account of AMP expenses incurred by the assessee is not sustainable-Selection of comparables-For benchmarking under the RPM, functional attribute is a primary factor rather than the similarity of the products-Reimbursement of expenses-TPO, as well as the DRP, were not justified in treating the value of the international transaction of reimbursement of expenses to be Nil.[S.92CA]

Thermo Fisher Scientific India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 865 / 176 taxmann.com 501 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 92C: Transfer pricing]-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Not charging interest on late realisations of receivables-Addition made towards notional interest on delayed receivables from AEs is deleted.

ACIT v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2025) 236 TTJ 550/ 174 taxmann.com 867 (Ahd)(Trib)

S.80IA: Industrial undertakings]-Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development-Industrial park-Withdrawal of approval by CBDT-CBDT could not have on its own motion withdrawn the notification-The communication of Ministry of Commerce which was relied upon by the CBDT for withdrawing the notification has been subsequently clarified by the Ministry of Commerce itself as well as by the High Court-There was no reason for withdrawal of notification-The AO is directed to allow the claim of deduction under S. 80IA(4).[S.80IA(4)(iii), 119]

Pantheon Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 601 (Mum)(Trib)