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. 80G : Donation-Failure to furnish documents-Opportunity to be given. [S. 254(1), Form No 10AB]

Sultankhan Educational Trust v. CIT (2025) 212 ITD 376 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Receipt of school bus fees, tuition fees and exam fees-Registration was granted-Approval under section 80G cannot be denied. [S. 2(15),11, 12, 12A, 13]

Anugraha Education Trust. v. CIT (2025) 212 ITD 520 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Issue linked with registration u/s 12A-Matter remanded.[S.12A]

Nanchahal Family Memorial Trust v. CIT (E) (2025) 212 ITD 372 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Rejection of application-Non-service of notice-Matter remanded [S. 80G(5), 282]

Sharan Foundation v. CIT (2025) 212 ITD 463 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Deduction of 50% of CSR expenses-Receipts produced-Claim allowed [S. 37(1)]

DCIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (2025) 212 ITD 468 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Some objects were religious in nature-Not incurred any expenditure which was of religious nature-Mere use of words ‘religious’ or ‘religion’ in few objects of trust deed would not mean that trust was not for charitable purpose but was for religious purpose. [S.80G (5), Form No 10AB]

Shree Mahavideh Charitable Trust. v. CIT (E) (2025) 212 ITD 587 (Surat) (Trib)

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Export of readymade garments-Sales not doubted-Profit margin embedded in value of such disputed purchases was to be estimated at 2.5 per cent. [S.133(6) 145]

Braham Dev Gupta. v. JCIT (2025) 212 ITD 238 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash deposited in bank-Source explained-Addition is deleted. [S. 115BBE]

Girishkumar Jamnadas Bhalodiya Kishan. v. ITO (2025) 212 ITD 249 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Immovable property-Source of investment is explained-Addition is deleted.

Bharat Mithalal Jain. v. ITO (2025) 212 ITD 232 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Demonetisation-Cash deposit-Senior citizen widow-Savings over 30 years-Addition deleted

Hemlata Kamalakar Deo v. ITO (2025) 212 ITD 264 (Mum)(Trib.)