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. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-High Court affirmed the quashing of the revision order by the Tribunal-SLP of revenue is dismissed as the revenue could not explain the delay of 305 days in filing the SLP. [S. 54B, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF (2025) 307 Taxman 6 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF (2025) 178 taxmann.com 133 (Guj)(HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Industrial undertakings-Infrastructure development-Contractor-Developer-Tribunal had not considered evidence on record and had merely recorded bare conclusions without setting out any reasons in support thereof, order of Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Act was set aside and matter was remitted back to Tribunal for disposal afresh on merits. [S.80IA(4)(1)(b),254(1), Art. 226]

Gulermak TPL Joint Venture v. ITAT (2025) 307 Taxman 597 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Pendency of application before Settlement Commission-Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide on the merits-High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 245F(2), Art. 136]

PCIT v. MD Industries (P.) Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 301 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v.MD Industries (P) Ltd ([2025] 172 taxmann.com 91 / 473 ITR 744 (Guj) (HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Condonation of delay-Delay of six to seven years-Documents were handed over to the counsel-Mistake of counsel-High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal held that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground for condonation of delay-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP of assessee dismissed. [Art. 136]

C.I. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2025) 307 Taxman 2 / (2026) 484 ITR 192 (SC) Editorial: C.I. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 305 Taxman 217 (MP) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Order set aside by the Tribunal-Order of attachment was directed to be lifted. [S. 153A, Art. 226]

JSR Infra Projects (P.) Ltd. v. TRO (2025) 307 Taxman 578 (Mad)(HC)

S. 158BC: Block assessment-No satisfaction note-Delay of 595 days-SLP dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 132, Art. 136]

CIT v. Vijay Goel (2025) 307 Taxman 445 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. ITAT (2025) 179 taxmann.com 409 (Bom) HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-No incriminating material-SLP of revenue dismissed. [Art. 136]

ACIT v. Kishore Kumar Sharma (2025) 307 Taxman 172 (SC) Editorial: Kishore Kumar Sharma v. ACIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 315 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 151: Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Approval granted after expiry of three years-SLP delay of 411 days-SLP of revenue was dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [S.148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1)(b), Art. 136]

ACIT, IT v. LinkedIn Singapore Pte. Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 524 (SC) Editorial: Linkedin Singapore PTE. Ltd. v. ACIT(IT) [2025] 179 taxmann.com 412 (Bom)(HC)

S. 150: Assessment-Order on appeal-Survey-Direction issued by the CIT(A) beyond the limitation period-No assessment or reassessment could be made as the time period prescribed under section 149 had already expired-Assessing Officer could not have reopened assessment in compliance with said direction.[S. 133A, 148, 149, 150(1),250, Art. 226]

Shubh Buildcon v. ITO (2025) 307 Taxman 181 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Concession given by Additional Solicitor General (ASG)-Notice under section 148 dated 5-4-2022, and all consequential orders/notices were to be quashed.[S. 148, 149(1)(b),151, Art. 226]

Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma v. ITO, IT (2025) 307 Taxman 367 (Bom.)(HC)