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. 69A : Unexplained money-Post-demonetisation deposit of old currency notes-Cash book balance insufficient to explain deposit – Failure to explain the source – Addition was affirmed.[S. 260A]

Pankaj Gupta v. PCIT (2025) 477 ITR 387/174 taxmann.com 747 (Orissa)(HC) Editorial : SLP rejected, Pankaj Gupta v. PCIT ( 2025] 305 Taxman 407 / 477 ITR 390 (SC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Denominations – Details not maintained – Nature of source of cash deposit was not explained satisfactorily – SLP of assessee dismissed. [Art. 136]

Pankaj Gupta v. PCIT (2025) 477 ITR 390/305 Taxman 407 (SC) Editorial : Pankaj Gupta v. PCIT (2025) 477 ITR 387/174 taxmann.com 747 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Accepted cost of acquisition – Difference between intrinsic value of shares and amount paid by assessee cannot be taxed as perquisites – Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed. [S. 2(24)(iv), 260A]

CIT v. Naresh K. Trehan. (2025) 305 Taxman 547/ 477 ITR 589 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Payments to agents cannot be disallowed – Order of Tribunal set aside. [ITR, 1962 R. 6DD, Indian Contract Act, 1872, S. 182.]

SK. Jaynal Abddin v.CIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 640 / (2025) 477 ITR 95 (Cal)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Foreign exchange rates Expenses incurred on account of foreign exchange fluctuation and interest thereon in respect of foreign currency loans-Allowable business expenditure-Order of Tribunal set aside-Travelling expenses-Expenses incurred towards foreign tour of executives accompanied by their spouses-Major portion of claim allowed by Commissioner (Appeals)-Miniscule amount being involved order of Tribunal, affirmed.

Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 477 ITR 611/176 taxmann.com 104 (Bom)(HC) CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2025) 477 ITR 611/176 taxmann.com 104 (Bom)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provision for warranty – Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is affirmed.

PCIT v. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 549 / (2025) 477 ITR 576 (Delhi)(HC)

Constitution of India .
Art. 226: Cyber fraud – Unauthorized electronic banking transactions – Zero liability of customer (RBI Circular) – Bank’s duty of prompt action – Fraudulent siphoning of ₹94,204.80 on downloading app at behest of fraudster impersonating brand customer-care – Customer informed bank within one working day – No proof of customer sharing OTP/MPIN – Failure of Bank to lodge complaint, initiate charge-back or take timely steps – Third-party breach admitted by merchant – Negligence of customer not established – Liability of bank to refund entire amount- RBI Circular dated 06-07-2017, clauses , 7(1) 8, 9&10 ]

State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick (Gauhati) ( HC) (GAHC010232752022 ) www.itatonline .org . Editorial : SLP of petitioner dismissed , State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick &Ors( SLP (C ) No .30677 of 2024 dt .3-1 -2025 ( SC)

Constitution of India .
Art. 226 : Cyber-Fraud Claim – Customer Liability under RBI Circular (RBI Circular dated 06-07-2017 – Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions) – RBI Circular protects customers only in cases of third-party breach or where no negligence is attributable to the account holder; it cannot be used as a “sword” to recast personal transactions as cyber fraud- Writ petition was dismissed . [ Art. 227 ]

Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Ors v. Bank of Baroda (All)( HC) MANU/UP/1956/2025.

Indian Registration Act, 1908
S:17: Documents of which registration is compulsory – Assignment of decree for specific performance –Decree for specific performance does not create or transfer any right, title or interest in immovable property – Assignment of such decree is not an instrument falling under Section 17(1)(e)- Assignment deed was valid even without registration and execution could not be denied on that ground . [S. 17(1)( c) , Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , Order 21,Rule 16 ]

Rajeswari & Ors v. Shanmugam & Anr (2025 INSC 1329 ) (SC)

Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 .
Constitution of India – Tribunals – Independence of Judiciary – Constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 – Legislative override of judicial directions – Doctrine of separation of powers- Validity of the Act is struck down -Tribunals being substitutes for High Courts in many fields, must meet the same constitutional standards of independence and cannot be exposed to executive control in matters of appointments, tenure, remuneration, or administration – Court directed the Union of India a period of four months from the date of this judgment to establish a National Tribunals Commission- The commission so constituted must adhere to the principles articulated by this Court, particularly concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system- Court also clarified and directed that the service conditions of all such Members of ITAT who were appointed by order dated 11th September 2021 shall be governed by the old Act and the old Rules. [ Art. 14, 21, 50 ,141, 323-A, 323-B ]

Madras Bar Association v. UOI ( SC) www.itatonline .org .