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.37(1): Business expenditure-Construction business-Order of Tribunal deleting the disallowance was affirmed.[S. 260A]

PCIT v. Keti Construction Ltd [2024] 162 taxmann.com 278 / (2025) 475 ITR 182 (MP) (HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Pipeline installation-Contingent liability
Disallowance justified where liability towards port authorities was contingent and not crystallized-No substantial question of law. [S. 260A]

Petronet V. K. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2025) 475 ITR 494 (Guj)(HC)

S.14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-No exempt income-No disallowance can be made-Amendment in law will be applicable prospectively from 1-4-2022. [S. 260A, R.8D]

PCIT v. Keti Construction Ltd [2024] 162 taxmann.com 278 / (2025) 475 ITR 182 (MP) (HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Investment-Exemption-Purchase of shares of subsidiary-Non-profit entity-Pursuant to Government policy and TRAI recommendations-No violation Exemption allowable. [S. 11(5), 12, 13(1)(d), 260A, Companies Act, 1956, S. 25]

CIT v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation (2025) 475 ITR 580 / 173 taxmann.com 311 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty
Payments for purchase of licensed software not taxable as royalty. [S. 260A]

Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2025) 475 ITR 516 (Karn)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Powers- Tribunal remanding matter with cost – Cost of ₹50,000 imposed on small trader held to be harsh and unjustified – Order of Tribunal set aside . [ S. 250(6) ,254(2B), 260A ]

Abdul Mannan v. ITO(Cal)(HC) www.itatonline .org . Editorial : Order of Tribunal in Abdul Mannan v. ITO , ITA No. 738/Kol/ 2025 dt .15 -7 -2025(SMC) ( AY. 2017 18 ), levying cost of Rs .50,000/ was set aside .

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Procedure – Time bound disposal of appeals) – Delay in disposal of appeals – Pending for five years – Stipulation of one year period for disposal of appeal in provisions of section 250(6A) – Legislative intent – Inordinate delay would defeat objective of provision -If the appeal was not disposed within this period, the reasons for such delay must be explicitly recorded in the orders, so as to reflect whether the delay was attributable to the assessee or the Department and efforts should be made to decide the appeals maximum within a period of two years – Commissioner (Appeals) directed to decide appeal within three months from date of order of court – The Registry was directed to send a copy of this order to Union of India, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner (Central) for necessary compliance. [ S. 246A , 250(6A) , Art. 226.]

Kulwinder Paul Singh v .CBDT (2025) 475 ITR 371/ 173 taxmann.com 358 (P & H) (HC)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Procedure – Time bound -Pending for ten years – Directions issued for disposal of appeal within six months from the date of order of the court. [S. 246A, 250(6A) , Art. 226 ]

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd v. UOI (2025) 475 ITR 370 ( P & H) (HC)

Vivad se Vishwas I Relief for MSMEs Scheme, 2023.
(Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006.)

Reclassification of assessee as not micro or small or medium enterprise-Vivad se Vishwas I Scheme-Micro or small or medium enterprise-Eligibility for non-tax benefits-Entitled to avail of all non-tax benefits of category before reclassification for three years from date of reclassification. [Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006, S.9, 7, 8, Art.226]

Marine Electricals India Ltd v. UOI (2025) 474 ITR 239 (Bom)(HC)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

S. 34 : SARFAESI Act-Jurisdiction-DRT-Civil Court-Only DRT which would have exclusive jurisdiction to try such matters, to total exclusion of Civil Court. [S. 13, 17]

Regional Manager v. Punya Coal Road Lines [2023] 154 taxmann.com 599 (Bom)(HC)