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. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Curable defects-The penalty order for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) is valid even if issued in the old name of the company after a name change, if the entity remains the same. [S. 260A, 272A(c) (k) 292B]

CIT (TDS) v. Adma Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 473 ITR 36 /302 Taxman 106 / 342 CTR 643 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 271AAA: Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Undisclosed income-Disclosure in the course of search-Belated payment of tax and interest-Fulfilment of all three conditions stipulated under subsection (2) mandatory-Levy of penalty is justified. [S. 132 (4), 260A]

K. Krishnamurthy v. Dy. CIT (2025) 473 ITR 553 (Karn)(HC) Editorial : K. Krishnamurthy v. Dy. CIT (2025) 473 ITR 557 (SC), partly confirmed.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-The part consideration on account of immovable property sold was not received as cheques dishonoured-The assessee did not offer Capital Gain to tax during the relevant assessment year-Pr. CIT found that the AO did not examine details regarding dishonour of cheques-Assessment Order to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-S. 263, Explanation 2(a). [S. 45, 260A]

M.R. Apparels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 168 taxmann.com 197 / (2025) 472 ITR 793 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed,.R. Apparels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 472 ITR 799 (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Non-resident-AO allowed the claim under India-Singapore DTAA-CITA initiated the revisions proceedings on the ground that the assessee conduit company used for treaty shopping-without putting the allegation in the 263 notice-The assessee has not been heard on the said issue-Revision is bad in law-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S.9(1)(vii), 260A, Art. 12]

CIT (IT) v. Zebra Technologies Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (2025) 472 ITR 745 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue-Merely the fact that no inquiry was conducted by the AO on record of the survey before him cannot be basis for assumption of jurisdiction under S. 263 of the Act. [S. 28(i), 68, 69A, 115BBE, 133A, 263, Explanation 2.]

PCIT v. Parshottambhai Maganlal Ramotia [2025] 302 Taxman 448 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Sale of land-Twin conditions of order being erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue-Lack of inquiry and documents not verified by Assessing Officer-Principal Commissioner correctly invoked power of revision under section 263 of the Act. [S. 2(14), 45, 260A]

PCIT v. Sangeeta Jain (Ms.) [2024] 168 taxmann.com 276 /(2025) 472 ITR 662 /342 CTR 150(Delhi) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Unaccounted cash sales-Assessing Officer has examined the issue in the original assessment proceedings-Revision is not valid merely because the PCIT has a differing views-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question of law.[S.68, 260A]

PCIT v. Asiatic Bearing Co [2025] 172 taxmann.com 646(Guj)(HC)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Condonation of delay of 55 days-Delay in filing appeal on wrong advise of Counsel-Sufficient cause within the ambit of Section 253(5)-Delay is condoned.[S. 12A, 253(5), 260A]

Navodit Samaj Sevi Sanstha v. ITO (2025) 472 ITR 647 /170 taxmann.com 377 /342 CTR 538 / 245 DTR 443 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

S. 240: Refunds-Appeal-Tax deducted at source-Refund should be granted without application for it.[S. 199, 239, 244A(1)(a), Art. 226]

ESS Singapore Branch v. Dy. CIT (2024) 165 taxmann.com 645 / (2025) 473 ITR 541 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Pendency of appeal-Dealing with stay applications to ensure a fair balance between tax collection and taxpayer rights without necessitating pre-deposit as a mandate for considering the stay-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 132, 220(6) 246A, Art. 226]

Sushen Mohan Gupta v. PCIT (2024) 161 Taxmann.com 257 / (2025) 473 ITR 173 (Delhi) (HC)