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. 36(1)(vii): Bad debt-Amount of unreconciled debtors written off-Allowable as bad debt. [S. 36(2)]

Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 58 /121 ITR 195 / 174 taxmann.com 100 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 32: Depreciation-Goodwill-Amalgamation-Purchase method-AS 14-Provisions of sixth proviso to s. 32(1), Expln. 7 to s. 43(1) and Expln. 2(b) to s. 43(6) has no applicability to the facts of the case-Amendment made vide Finance Act, 2021, in relation to the allowance of depreciation on goodwill is effective from 1st April, 2021 and is applicable to asst. yr. 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years-Entitled to claim depreciation on goodwill arising on account of amalgamation-Customer relationship or distribution network-existing in the books of the amalgamating company-Fair value of these assets was specifically computed by the independent valuer vide his valuation report-The AO is directed to grant depreciation on “customer relationship” and “distribution network” arising on account of amalgamation. [S. 32(1), 43(1)]

Dow Chemical International (P) Ltd. v. DCIT 2024] 169 taxmann.com 290 / (2025) 234 TTJ 712 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Fixed deposits held by the assessee-bank with another bank written off—Allowable as business loss.

Surat National Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 529 / (Surat)(Trib)

S. 28(i): Business loss-Overstated bank balance written off— Allowable as business loss.

Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 58 /121 ITR 195 / 174 taxmann.com 100 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 17(2): Salary-Perquisite-Personal expenses of director-Paid through the credit card of the company-Disallowed in the assessment of company-Can not be taxed again in hands of assessee-director as perquisite under section 2(24)(iv).[S. 2(24)iv), 28(iv), 37(1)]

Mecca Rafeeque Ahmed v. ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 691 / 172 taxmann.com 160 (Chennai)(Trib) Israr Ahmed v. ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 691 / 172 taxmann.com 160 (Chennai)(Trib) Ashifaque Ahmed Mecca v. v. ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 691 / 172 taxmann.com 160 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 270A: Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Vagueness of notice was not accepted-Partly allowed the relief on quantum addition-Assessing Officer was directed to modify the order after giving effect to the order. [S. 43B, 274]

Magnaquest Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 146/ 238 TTJ 920 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Excess stock-Survey-Additional income was offered-Specific queries raised by Assessing Officer and had explained that the only source of income of assessee was from business-Revision order of CIT for not invoking provision of section 115 BBE was quashed and set aside.[S. 28(i), 69, 115BBE, 133A, 143(3)]

Akashdeep Cloth Centre. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 597 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Purchase of immovable property-Below circle rate-Sale consideration and DVO-determined FMV for assessee’s share was within permissible 10 per cent variation-CBDT Circular No. 8/2018-Revision by PCIT treating variation as taxable and Circular as prospective was an unsustainable, change of opinion not supported by law-Revision order was quashed. [S.50C, 56(2)(viib), 143(3), 147]

Mamta Agarwal. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 553 (Agra) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Charitable purpose-Objects of general public utility-Providing a platform for conducting transactions of member banks-Charging only nominal fees to recover cost of infrastructure and operations-Assessing Officer, after making specific inquiries, allowed exemption under section 11-Revision order was quashed and set aside.[S. 2(15), 11, 12, Companies Act, 1956, S. 25]

National Payments Corporation of India. v. CIT (E) (2025) 215 ITD 350 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Expenditure on scientific research-DSIR’s quantification of eligible R&D expenditure in Form 3CL was mandatory-Failure to quantify the deduction-assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. [S. 35(2AB),143(3), R.6(7A)]

Pharmanza Herbal (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 273 (Ahd) (Trib.)