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. 45: Capital gains-Transfer of rights in plot of land-Following the order of the brother, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. [S. 147, 148]

Hemantkumar Gajanan Lad. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 366 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Sale of shares-Accommodation entries-Sale through registered stockbroker-Copies of contract note filed-Genuine transaction-Denial of exemption was not justified-Allowed exemption-Addition was deleted.[S. 10(38, 69A, 147, 148]

Sangita Ben Mardia. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 210 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Family settlement-Capital asset –Transfer-Gift-Relinquishment of possession-Civil suit-Compensation received assessable as capital gains and not income from other sources.[S. 2(14), 2(47), 54, 54EC, 56(2)]

Dharampal Saghera v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 69 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 44AD : Presumptive basis-Bogus purchases-Not under any obligation to explain individual entry of purchases-Gross receipts remained undisputed-Additions deleted.[S. 69C]

Lakshmanram Bheemaji Purohit v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 507 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 44AD: Presumptive basis-Cash credits-Unexplained investment-Demonetization-Cash deposits in books-Source of cash deposits explained-VAT return-Declared sales-Sales not doubted-The additions cannot be made as cash credits or unexplained investment.[S. 68, 69]

Mohit Sukhija v. NFA (2025) 213 ITD 251 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 44AD : Presumptive basis-Cash credits-Bank deposits-Treated as turnover-Assessing Officer had not shown that such deposits were different from business receipts; addition as sustained by Commissioner (Appeals) was deleted.[S.68]

Jatin Arora. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 173 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.43B: Deductions on actual payment-VAT payment-Fake challan-No actual payment-Addition was justified-Deduction-LIC premium-Failure to produce evidence-Disallowance was affirmed. [S.80C]

Ganga Reddy Gidde. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 692 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment-Leave encashment-Disallowed earlier years-Settled by filing an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024-Allowable as a deduction on a payment basis. [S.43B(f)]

Universal Cables Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 213 ITD 428 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Gold and precious metals-lower authorities had neither referred to nor relied upon any objective market data to determine the fair value of purchases-Matter was remanded to the file of CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.[S. 40A(2)(a)]

ITO v. Khetalaji Gold (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 607 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Provision made for future expenditure-Matter remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. [S. 145]

ACIT v. Delhi Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 291 (Delhi) (Trib.)