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 – Objection disposed along with the assessment order – Order passed without disposing the objection by passing a separate order- Failure to dispose of objections separate order – Reopening notice and reassessment order is quashed and set aside . [S. 80 IA, 142 (1), 143(3),148, Art. 226 ]

Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( 2025) 171 taxmann.com 800 /474 ITR 498 ( Bom)( HC)

Maharashtra Stamps Act, 1958

S. 48 :Application for relief under section 47 – Period for application for relief – Refund Of Stamp Duty – Amended limitation period – Deed of cancellation- Deed of rectification- Accrued right to claim refund arose the moment the cancellation deed is validly executed- Entitled to the benefit of unamended provision of S.48(1)- No Power with Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune (CCRA) to recall its own order- Directed to refund the amount with interest @ 6 percent from the date of first order. [S. 47 ,50, Limitation Act, 1963 ,S.30, Registration Act, 1908 , S. 47 ]

Harshit Harish Jain v. The State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0103/2025(SC)

S. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-Substantial compliance-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 143(3), 272A(1)(d)]

Pawan International v. ITO (Chd)(Trib) (UR)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Mere disallowance of expenditure no penalty can be levied. [S. 274]

Raj Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2024) 111 ITR 336 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271DA: Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 269ST-Transactions in cash exceeding prescribed limit-Bifurcating bills to each customer-Technical or venial breach-Penalty is deleted.[S. 269ST]

Finesse International Design P. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2024)111 ITR 37 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Cash received from purchaser as final payment before Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed of property-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 269SS]

Ramkumar Reddy Satty v. ACIT (Hyd.)(Trib.) (UR)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bogus purchases-Estimated addition-Levy of penalty is not valid.[S.69A]

ITO v. Saraswati Wire And Cable Industries (Mum)(Trib)(UR)

S.271 (1) (c): Penalty-Concealment-Even if the reassessment order was quashed for any reason, the original assessment order would continue to exist-Additional income assessed in reassessment would warrant separate penalty proceedings-Independent of penalty qua income assessed in the original assessment-Matter remanded to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. [S. 143(3), 147, 148, 250]

Balaji Farms and Reality v. Asst. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 30 (SN) (Indore)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Quantum against-Quantum decided against alone was not sufficient for initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [S.80GGC]

Anjali Neeraj Hardikar v. NFAC(2024) 111 ITR 15 (SN) (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(C) : Penalty-Concealment-Remuneration and interest on capital received from the firm as a partner-Assessing officer processed original return though the claim may be wrong-No issue as regards concealment of particulars of income, not a fit case for levy of penalty. [S.44AD]

Anandkumar Salooja v. Dy. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 95 (SN)(Chennai)(Trib.)