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. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Delay of 70 days-Order of CIT(E) not condoning the delay was quashed and set aside-Authority concerned was directed to grant the exemption.[S. 11, 119(2)(b), Form No 10B, Art. 226]

Dinesh Surendra Kotecha v. UOI (2025) 307 Taxman 504 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Form No 10B was not filed along with the return-Mistake of chartered accountant-Delay of 1448 days-High Court condoned the delay and directed the authority concerned to allow the exemption. [S. 11, 12A, 119(2)(b), Form No 10B, Art. 226 ]

Babubhai C Jariwala Charitable Trust v. CBDT (2025) 307 Taxman 592 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Accumulation of income-Filed after due date of return-Delay of 338 days-Suffer genuine hardship if delay was not condoned, as accumulated amount had already been applied towards objects of trust in relevant assessment year and if exemption in respect of accumulated amount was denied and tax demand arising on account of denial of benefit of accumulation was recovered, it would place assessee in gross financial difficulty, delay in filing Form No. 10 was condoned. [S. 11(2), 11(5),139(1), Form No 10, Art.226]

Columbia Global Center in India v. ITO (E) (2025) 307 Taxman 548 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Deemed application of income-Filed Form No 10 instead of Form No 9A-[S.11(1), 12A, 80G,119(2)(b), Form No.9A Form No 10, Art. 226 ]

Lakhi Trust v. ITO (E) (2025) 307 Taxman 557 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Delay in filing tax audit report-High Court condoned the delay and directed to allow the exemption-SLP of revenue was delayed by 237 days-SLP is dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [S. 11, 12, Form No 10B Art. 136]

CIT (E) v. Anjana Foundation (2025) 307 Taxman 169 / (2026) 485 ITR 10 (SC) Editorial : CIT(E) v. Anjana Foundation [2024] 168 taxmann.com 462 (Guj) HC)

S. 115BAA: Certain domestic companies, tax on-Revised return filed after the due date of filing of return was not entertained-SLP of assessee was dismissed.[S. 115JB, 139, Form 10-IC, Art. 136]

Sarla Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 307 Taxman 446 /(2026) 487 ITR 235 (SC) Editorial : Sarla Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [2025] 179 taxmann.com 83 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Distribution business-No ALP adjustment made by TPO-Separate AMP adjustment was uncalled for-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 260A ]

PCIT v. Sony India (P.) Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 173 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Intra-group services-Matter remanded by Tribunal to Transfer Pricing Officer-High Court holding no infirmity in order of Tribunal-SLP of revenue dismissed.[S.92CA(3), Art. 136]

American Express Banking Corporation v. ACIT (2025] 307 Taxman 226 / (2026) 484 ITR 1 (SC) Editorial: American Express Banking Corporation v. ADIT (IT) (2025) 476 ITR 752 (Delhi HC)

S. 80IB(10): Housing projects-Built up area of each flat less than 1000 square feet-Approved construction plan-Unexplained money-Three flats on the same floor were sold at different rates-Rates at which flats were sold were higher than stamp valuation-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition was affirmed-No question of law. [S.69A, 260A]

PCIT, Central v. AHCL PEL (2025) 307 Taxman 317 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information for sales tax department-Hawala transactions-Not given an opportunity of cross-examination-Order of Tribunal limiting addition to 15 per cent of alleged purchases was affirmed. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Ramelex (P.) Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 356 (Bom.)(HC)