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-Foreign business income-Tax paid in Nepal-Delay in filing Form No. 67-Assessee would be entitled to FTC. DTAA-India-Nepal [Form No 67]
BGA Electrical & Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 210 ITD 472 (Kol.) (Trib.)
S. 90 : Double taxation relief-Foreign tax credit-Form No. 67 not filed within due date of filing return under section 139(1) but filed before processing of return by CPC-Directory and not mandatory-Foreign tax credit cannot be denied. [S. 139(1) Form No 67]
Preeti Das v. ITO (Pune) (Trib) (UR)
S. 80P: Co-operative societies-Delay in filing of return-The amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) enabling disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VIA was made by Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 1-4-2021-The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim. [S.80AC, 139(1), 143(1)(a)(v)]
Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 210 ITD 375 (Lucknow) (Trib.)
S. 80IB (10) : Housing projects-Assessee cannot be deprived of the benefit if the delays are beyond the control of the assessee-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
City Corporation Ltd. v. Dy.CIT-(2025) 233 TTJ 367 (Pune) (Trib)
S.70: Set off of loss-One source against income from another source-Same head of income-arrangement of affairs within legal framework through legitimate means to reduce its tax liability-no evidence on record to doubt genuineness of transactions-STCL derived by assessee could not be prevented from being set off against LTCG. [S. 45]
ACIT v. Ranu Vohra (2025) 210 ITD 285 (Mum.) (Trib.) Editorial: Pr. CIT (Central) v. Adar Cyrus Poonawalla [2018] 100 taxmann.com 227/260 Taxman 41 (Bom)(HC) followed.
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Information from Invetsigation wing-The AO cannot proceed to disallow only the purchases in isolation and the Tribunal disallowed the purchases at 12.5%. On appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, the Tribunal observed that the Assessee had only made payments towards purchases from previous year, hence the addition for A.Y. 2014-15 was unjustified. [S. 147, 148]
Manak Chand Daga v. ITO (2025) 233 TTJ 11 (UO) (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Search and seizure-Unabated assessment-Purchases are recorded in regular books of account-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed.
Dy.CIT v. Aba Builders Ltd (2025) 233 TTJ 328(Delhi)(Trib)
S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash found in the work premises-Sales-Matter restored to AO to consider the evidence submitted. [S. 131, 133A]
Turab Ali Bohra v. ACIT(2025) 121 ITR 153 (Jaipur)(Trib)
S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash deposit-Demonetisation-Cash sales-Deletion of addition is affirmed by the Tribunal.
Subhash Chand Gupta v. ACIT (2025) 210 ITD 118 (Delhi) (Trib.)