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. 90 :Double taxation relief-Elimination of double taxation-Review petition dismissed against order of Supreme Court that a notification under section 90(1) is a mandatory condition to give effect to a DTAA, or any protocol changing its terms or conditions, which has effect of altering existing provisions of law and thus, for a party to claim benefit of a same treatment clause, based on entry of DTAA between India and another state which is member of OECD, relevant date would be entering into treaty with India and not a later date, when, after entering into DTAA with India, such country becomes an OECD member, in terms of India’s practice-DTAA-India-France [R. 128, Art. 10, 13]

Nestle SA v. AO (IT) (2024) 300 Taxman 361/ 341 CTR 320/ 243 DTR 88 (SC) Editorial : AO(IT) v. Nestle SA (2023) 155 taxmann.com 384/ 296 Taxman 580/335 CTR 145/ 231 DTR 113 (SC)

S. 80IC : Special category States-Manufacture of pan masala (Mouth freshener)-Pan masala without any tobacco content will not fall within purview of Entry 1 of Part A of Thirteenth Schedule and assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IC(2)(a)(i) read with section 80IC(3). [S.80IC(2)(a), 80IC(3), 260A]

Unicorn Industries v. PCIT (2024) 300 Taxman 347 /(2025) 475 ITR 47 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 80IB (10) : Housing projects-Project was sanctioned prior to 1-4-2005-Concept of built up area was introduced with effect from 1-4-2005 could not be applied retrospectively-Expression built up area would exclude balcony area-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S.80IB(14), 260A]

PCIT v. G.K. Developers (2024) 300 Taxman 331 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Trading in resign and chemicals on whole sale basis-Information from Sales tax Department-Order of Tribunal restricting the addition to 12.5 % of gross profit is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 133(6), 145(3) 260A]

PCIT v. SVD Resins & Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 503 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Search-Diary-Unexplained general expenses-Legal expenses-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed-No substantial question of law.[S. 132, 153A, 260A]

PCIT v. Timblo (P.) Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 343 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Search and seizure-Duplicate account-Yield in various years-Finding reversed relying on statement-Order of Tribunal is restored-Miscellaneous application against the order of Supreme Court is dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 132, 143(3), Art. 136]

ACIT v. Kantilal Exports Surat (2024) 300 Taxman 99 (SC) Editorial : ACIT v. Kantilal Exports Surat (2023) 293 Taxman 531/ 454 ITR 112 /332 CTR 610/ 225 DTR 357 (SC) M. Kantilal Exports v. ACIT (2011) 330 ITR 185 (Guj)(HC), reversed.

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Failure to consider TDS challans-Matter is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer-Directed to pay cost of Rs.15000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.[S. 142(1), 143(3), 147, 148, Art. 226]

Basheera Begum v. Jt. CIT (2024) 300 Taxman 160 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Export of Rice-Search by Enforcement Directorate-Alleged mis-declaration of value of goods exported-Dropping of proceedings by Enforcement Directorate-Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is affirmed.[S. 148, 260A, FERA]

CIT v. Sachdeva & Sons (2024) 300 Taxman 211 /(2025) 478 ITR 594 (P&H)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Search-Purchase of raw material-Department and had only assumed undisclosed investment being source of purchases recorded for subsequent sales-Order of Tribunal had rightly deleted addition made by Assessing Officer under section 69C-No substantial question of law. [S.260A]

PCIT v. Simpex Granito (P.) Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 150 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Bogus purchases-Purchase from grey market-Trading in gold and diamond jewellery-Sales accepted-Books of account not rejected-Order of Tribunal estimating addition of 13.05 per cent of gross profit is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 145, 260A]

PCIT v. Sunil Mittal HUF (2024) 300 Taxman 288 (Guj.)(HC)