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. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Real estate business-Order of Tribunal was affirmed-Order of Tribunal was reversed in so far as the purchases from the two parties were concerned-However, the total additions should not exceed the total purchases from them.[S. 68, 133(6), 260A]

PCIT v. Shree Ganesh Developers (2025) 476 ITR 568 /172 taxmann.com 542 (HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Purchase of newsprint-Ad hoc disallowance of 15 per cent. reduced to 5 per cent. by Tribunal-Assessee accepting 5 per cent. Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.37(1), 56, 131, 153(3), 246A, 260A]

CIT v. Jaya Publications (2025) 476 ITR 545 /174 taxmann.com 104 (Mad)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Investigation Wing-Restriction of disallowance by Tribunal to 6 per cent. justified.[143(3), 147, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Atul Kailashchand Mehta.(2025) 476 ITR 460 (Guj)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Only income component of disputed purchases taxable-Restriction of disallowance by Tribunal to six per cent. justified. [S. 132, 143(3) 147, 260A]

PCIT v. Amit Tarachand Jain (2025) 476 ITR 74 (Guj) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application-Identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors proved-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-Business expenditure-Income taxed twice-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.37(1), 133(6), 133A, 145(3), 260A]

PCIT v. Garg Acrylics Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 737 /305 Taxman 285 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Cultivator and grower-Company engaged in pasteurisation not producer of milk-Disallowance was up held-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Principle of noscitur a sociis. [S. 260A, R.6DD(e)(ii)]

Arasappan Madhivanan v. ITO (2025) 476 ITR 169 / 173 taxmann.com 876 (Mad)(HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Purchase of jewellery-Failure to show circumstances that required assessee to effect payments in cash-SLP of assessee dismissed. [R. 6DD, Art. 136]

Natesan Krishnamurthy v. ITO (2025) 476 ITR 12 /304 Taxman 592 (SC) Editorial : Natesan Krishnamurthy v. ITO (2019) 262 Taxman 127/ 178 DTR 177 / (Mad)(HC)/ (2019) 13 ITR-OL 80 /2019 SCC OnLine Mad 2366)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Commission-Discount-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Disallowance was deleted. [S. 260A]

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2025) 476 ITR 80 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital-Installation of cell site towers Provision did not contemplate distinction between capital borrowed for revenue or capital purpose-Expansion of business-Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to examine aspects pertaining to common pool of funds as framed by Tribunal and cell sites actually brought into use. [S. 37(1), 260A]

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2025) 476 ITR 80 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Installation of cell site towers-Lease agreement-Accounting Standard 29-Entitle to depreciation.[S. 260A]

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2025) 476 ITR 80 (Delhi)(HC)