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. 5 : Scope of total income-Interest on Government Securities-Right to receive interest on Government securities vested in assessee only on due date mentioned in securities and could not be said to have accrued to assessee on any date other than dates stipulated therein-Delay of 364 days-SLP of Revenue is dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 145, 245C, 245D, Art. 136]

ITSC v. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 270 (SC) Editorial : Indusind Bank Ltd v. ITSC (2023) 152 taxmann.com 489/ 456 ITR 376(Bom)(HC)

S. 5 : Scope of total income-Interest on Government Securities-Right to receive interest on Government securities vested in assessee only on due date mentioned in securities and could not be said to have accrued to assessee on any date other than dates stipulated therein-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 145, 245C, 245D, Art. 136]

ITSC v. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 423 (SC) Editorial : Indusind Bank Ltd v. ITSC (2024) 169 taxmann.com 588 (Bom)(HC)

S. 5 : Scope of total income-Accrual of income-High Court held that interest can be said to have accrued only on date on which it was due as per terms and conditions of security-Interest income on securities is to be taxed on due basis and not on accrual basis-Delay of 220 days-SLP dismissed on the ground that reasons assigned for condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient. [S. 145, Art. 136.

Jt. CIT v. State Bank of Hyderabad (2025) 302 Taxman 417 (SC) Editorial : State Bank of Hyderabad v. JCIT (2024) 169 taxmann.com 416 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Accumulated profits-Profits disclosed would be subject to adjustment and depreciation as granted in accordance with rates prescribed by Income-tax Act have to be deducted for ascertaining accumulated profits.[S. 32, 143(1), 148]

Babulal Jain v. ITO (2025) 302 Taxman 392 (Telangana)(HC)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
S. 12 : Punishment for contempt of court-Dy. CIT, Range-2, Lucknow (now retired) to be guilty under s. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Accordingly, a fine of Rs. 25,000 along with simple imprisonment for a period of one week is awarded to the contemnor-Dy. CIT, Range-2, Lucknow (now retired)—In case of default, he would suffer one day’s further simple imprisonment. [S.124(2), 127, Art. 226]

Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani, DYCIT [2024] 165 taxmann.com 471 / (2025) 342 CTR 53 / (2024) 244 DTR 1 (All)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020
S. 2(1)(j):Disputed tax—Additional ground of appeal— Non search case-Computation could not be @ 125 per cent but had to be @ only 100 per cent-Competent authority is directed to accept the form as claimed by the assessee. [S. 2(1)(n), 3, ITAct, S. 10(38), 45, 68, Art.226]

Umesh Navnitlal Shah (HUF) v. ITO (2025) 342 CTR 563 / 245 DTR 425 / 170 taxmann.com 674 (Bom)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

S. 2(1)(j): Disputed tax-Pendency of appeal-Rejection of declaration-Pendency of review petition-Review petition will also partake the character of pending proceedings and therefore the assessee should not have been non-suited or treated as ineligible for claiming benefit under DTVSV Act—Impugned order is hereby set aside—Respondent is directed to accept the revised declaration form filed by the assessee and process the same in accordance with DTVSV Act, 2020 and pass requisite orders in terms thereof. [S. 2(1)(a)(i), Art. 226]

NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. v. ITD [2024] 169 taxmann.com 85 / (2025) 342 CTR 502 / 245 DTR 163 / (Delhi)(HC)

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void-Priority of claim-Sale of property for dues of State Sales-tax Department— Provision of S. 26B of KGST Act, by virtue of the non obstante clause, excludes the operation of “any other law in force” and creates a first charge on the property of the dealer-The properties in possession of the petitioners cannot be proceeded against for realization of the arrears payable under the IT Act. [S. 222, Sch. II, R, 2& 16, Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, S. 26B]

Job G. Oommen v. UOI [2024] 169 taxmann.com 407 / (2025) 342 CTR 315 / 245 DTR 153 (Ker)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Revised return-After survey-Additional income—Order of Tribunal confirming the penalty is affirmed. [S. 139(5), 260A]

Dr. S. Duraisamy v. DCIT (2025) 342 CTR 668 / (2024) 243 DTR 210 (Mad)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-The AO had made all inquiries and verifications as required under the law-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed-No substantial question of law.[S. 143(3), 260A]

PCIT v. Dharam Singh (2025) 342 CTR 653 / 245 DTR 369 (All)(HC)