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. 68: Cash credits-Not explained the source-Order of High Court affirming the addition was affirmed-SLP of assessee dismissed on the ground of delay of 388 days and on merits. [Art. 136]

Mayor Foundation v. CIT (2025) 475 ITR 150 / 304 Taxman 660 (SC) Editorial : Mayor Foundation v. CIT (2024) 469 ITR 562 (P& H)(HC)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Amendment with effect from 1-4-2010-Interest on enhanced compensation and compulsory acquisition of agricultural land assessable as income from other sources in assessment year 2016-2017-Order of Tribunal set aside. [S. 56(2)(viii), 145B, 260A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 28]

PCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) [2024] 161 taxmann.com 301 / (2025) 475 ITR 294 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Exemption-Entry provider-Survey-Unexplained money-Principle of natural justice-No opportunity of cross examination was given-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed. [S. 10(38), 68, 69, 133A, 260A]

PCIT v. Kishore Kumar Mohapatra [2024] 162 taxmann.com 4 / (2025) 475 ITR 195 (Orissa)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue, dismissed, PCIT v. Kishore Kumar Mohapatra [2024] 298 Taxman 648 / (2025) 475 ITR 198 (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Disallowance-Payments liable to deduction of tax at source-Amount offered to tax by payee and tax thereon paid-AO taking one plausible view-Order not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue-Principal Commissioner cannot invoke revisional power-Not in default. [S. 40(a)(ia), 201(1), 260A]

PCIT v. Airlink Communications Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 475 ITR 658 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Explanation called for and offered by assessee during scrutiny assessment-Order of Assessing Officer neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue and need not be revised. [S.45, 54, 54EC, 143(3), 260A]

CIT v. Y. Jagan Mohan [2024] 168 taxmann.com 332 / (2025) 475 ITR 432 (Mad)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-No reference in the assessment order-Revision order was quashed and set aside. [S. 32, 260A]

V.G. Panneerdas & Co. v. ACIT (2025) 475 ITR 128 (Mad)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Audit objection-Commercial expediency-Pre closure premium paid to bank-Allowable as revenue expenditure-Tribunal was not justified in affirming the revision order. [S. 37(1), 260A]

EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 168 taxmann.com 592 / (2025) 475 ITR 3 (Mad)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Recovery of tax-Stay of recovery pending appeals-Department’s inaction on stay application for over six years deprecated-Delay in disposal of stay application-Adjusting refund-Direction to refund excess adjustment and expedite adjudication of pending appeal. [S.143(3), 156, 226, 237, 250(6A); CBDT Instruction No. 1914 dated 21-03-1996; Art. 226]

Mahesh Mathuradas Ganatra v. CPC (2025) 475 ITR 489 (Bom)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Interim Board for Settlement-Settlement pronounced but order not passed-Cessation of Settlement Commission and formation of Interim Board for Settlement-On oath, Vice-President and member of Settlement Commission confirmed conclusion of hearing and pronouncement of settlement-Interim Board directed to pass order under s. 245D(4) accepting settlement as pronounced. [S. 245C(1), 245D(4), Art. 226]

Gagjibhai Bhurabhai Koshiya & Ors. v. Interim Board of Settlement & Anr. [2024] 161 taxmann.com 48 / (2025) 475 ITR 249 (Guj)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Cash credits-Share application-Order of Settlement Commission accepting claim for deduction need not be interfered with-Order of Settlement Commission holding that addition of unsubstantiated share capital under s. 68 would not qualify for deduction under s. 80-IC set aside-Section 115BBE (introduced later) not applicable; assessee entitled to special deduction. [S. 68, 80-IC, 115BBE, 245D(3), 245D(4), Art. 226]

Valley Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. PCIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 72 / (2025) 475 ITR 231 (Delhi)(HC)