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. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Delay of 166 days-Justice-oriented approach-Delay condoned-Tribunal directed to decide appeal on merits.[S. 254(1), Art. 136]

Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. ITO (2025) 305 Taxman 83 / 343 CTR 39 / 246 DTR 207 (SC)

S. 239 : Refunds-Limitation-Refund of tax erroneously withheld-CBDT Circular ultra vires-Refund cannot be denied.[S. 119(2), 195, 237, Art. 226]

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 171 taxmann.com 469 / 343 CTR 705 / 247 DTR 321 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 237: Refunds-Condonation of delay-Reasonable cause-Date of claim in return relevant-Subsequent formal application immaterial-Refund allowed. [S. 119(2)(b), 139, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Vivek Krishnamoorthy (2025) 343 CTR 625 / 247 DTR 449 (Karn)(HC) Editorial: Vivek Krishnamoorthy v. PCIT (WP No. 16991 of 2023, dt. 2-11-2023) (Karn)(HC), Single Judge affirmed.

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Resolution Plan under IBC-Tax liability not shown as contingent liability-Subsequent demand invalid. [S. 154, IBC 2016 S. 31(1), 61, 62, Art. 136]

Vaibhav Goel v. DCIT (2025) 343 CTR 689 / 248 DTR 49 (SC) Editorial : Tehri Iron & Steel Castings Ltd dt. 25-11-2021(CD)

S. 206C: Collection at source-Trading-Forest produce-Scrap-Declarant in Form 27C is purchaser and not seller-Revenue’s contention rejected. [S. 206C(1A), R. 37C, Form 27C]

DCIT v. Central Coalfields Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 217 / 343 CTR 657 / 248 DTR 25 (Jharkhand)(HC)

S. 205 : Deduction at source-Bar against direct demand-Employer failed to deposit TDS deducted from salary-Demand cannot be raised against employee-Directions to CBDT to harassment in future-Technology/software must be rectified. [S. 119, 192, Art. 226]

Gayatri Snehal Rao v. ITO (2024) 168 taxmann.com 466 / (2025) 343 CTR 696 / 248 DTR 29 (Guj)(HC) Shobhan Shantilal Doshi v.ITO 168 taxmann.com 466 / (2025) 343 CTR 696 / 248 DTR 29 (Guj)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice in name of deceased-Invalid-No statutory obligation on deceased to intimate department. [S. 149(1)(b), 159(2)(b), Art. 226]

Preethi V. (Smt.) v. ITO (2025) 343 CTR 390 / 247 DTR 21 / 171 taxmann.com 100 (Karn)(HC) Editorial : Appeal affirmed by division bench, ITO v. Preethi V. (Smt) (2025) 343 CTR 385 / 247 DTR 16 / 170 Taxmann.com 673 (Karn)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice issued in name of deceased-Proceedings void-No revival against legal heirs after limitation-Order of single judge is affirmed. [S. 149, 159, Art. 226]

ITO v. Preethi V. (Smt) (2025) 343 CTR 385 / 247 DTR 16 / 170 Taxmann.com 673 (Karn)(HC) Editorial : Preethi V. (Smt.) v. ITO (2025) 343 CTR 390 / 247 DTR 21 / 171 taxmann.com 100 (Karn)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-No escapement of income-Mere non-uploading of audit report not fatal-Notice and reassessment quashed-Reassessment beyond six years-Notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 80IA(7), 148, Form 10CCB, Art. 226]

Shree Bhavani Power Projects (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 165 Taxmann.com 733 / (2025) 343 CTR 325 / 247 DTR 217 / 475 ITR 155 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Guarantee fee-No fresh tangible material referred to in reasons-Reassessment notice quashed. [S. 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Tata Communications Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 304 Taxman 476 / 343 CTR 641 / 247 DTR 489 (Bom)(HC)