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. 80G : Donation-Knowledge based spiritual programs-Promote high moral values and not rituals or religious practices-Rejection of application by CIT E) was set aside for re-examination. [S.80G(5)(iii)]

Prayatna Charitable Trust. v. CIT(E) (2025) 215 ITD 26 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Purchases-Mismatch between purchases in VAT returns and audited accounts-The difference was due to statutory compliance-Addition was deleted.

Ankur Fine Products. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 633 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Foreign travelling expenditure of daughter-borne by husband-Personal use of vehicle-Addition was deleted. [S. 132]

Lakhvir Kaur. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 39 (Chd) (Trib.)

S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash deposits-Additional evidence-Matter remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. [S. 147]

Chinthalapudi Ramakrishna. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 222 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash deposits-Past disclosures and withdrawals-Addition was sustained to the extent of Rs 10 lakhs.[S.44AE]

Renu Vinod Kaushal. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 12 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 69: Unexplained investment-Bonds/Debenture-Investment was made from her daughter’s bank account, where she was a nominee-Addition was deleted.

Renu Vinod Kaushal. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 12 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Jewellery-Jewellery bills found during search were not substantial-Poultry Farm Sale-Photocopy of an agreement to sell, allegedly retrieved from WhatsApp chat-Statement of buyer was not recorded-Additions on account were unjustified.[S. 131(IA), 132]

Lakhvir Kaur. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 39 (Chd) (Trib.)

S. 69: Unexplained investments-Investment in plot of land-Unsigned agreement to sell-Property continued to remain in the name of seller-Addition was deleted. [S. 132, 153A]

Balwant Singh. v. DCIT 2025) 215 ITD 64 (Chd) (Trib.)

S. 68: Cash credits-Capital is recorded through a proper banking channel-Capital introduced by a partner in the firm-No addition can be made in the hands of the firm.[S. 2(31)(iv), 133(6)]

ITO v. Goodfarm Rearing (Ahd.)(Trib.)(UR)

S. 68: Cash credits-Conversion of private limited company into LLP-The transfer of share capital and reserves to partners’ accounts upon conversion-The addition was not justified since the nature and source of the credit were not explained. [S. 47(xiiib)(f), 115BBE]

ITO v. NICAF LLP [2025] 175 taxmann.com 1001(Mum) (Trib.)