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 37(1): Business expenditure – Market development expenses – Capital or revenue – Expenses incurred towards sale of product- Revenue nature .

ARI Healthcare (P) Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2025) 172 taxmann.com 336 (Mum) ( Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Book profit-Penalty is not leviable. [S. 115JB]

Sunborne Energy Services India (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2025) 233 TTJ 118 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271AAB:Peanlty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-Undisclosed income-Detection of unexplained liabilities and expenses-Incriminating were found in the course of search-Not specifying the limb-Order of levying the penalty is affirmed. [S. 132]

Dy.CIT v. Subhash Tyagi [2024] 169 taxmann.com 623 (2025) 233 TTJ 198 / 245 DTR 33 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Appelllate Tribunal-Earlier years appeals are admitted by High Court and pending for final hearing-Issue covered by Supreme Court-Tax effect is below monitory limit-Appeal is not maintainable-Delay of 516 days.[S. 253(2)) 253(5)]

ITO v. Partap Industries Ltd (2025)233 TTJ 1 (UO) (Chd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Invalid reassessment cannot be set aside under section 263-Reopened to examine cash deposits-No addition was made-Revision on the ground that the AO has wrongly allowed exemption under section 54B and 54F-Revision order is quashed and set aside.[S.54B, 54F, 147, 148]

Ashok Kumar v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 988 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer partly disallowed the claim-Reassessment order is quashed-[S. 56, 57, 263, Explanation 2.]

Rakesh Kumar Doshi v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 846(Jodhpur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Enhanced compensation granted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Assessing Officer treated as exempt-Jurisdictional High Court held as taxable-Revision order is affirmed. [S. 10(37), 56(2)(viii), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 28, 34]

Jagjit Singh Kataria v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 1 / 245 DTR 49 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-AO raised specific queries-Revision order is quashed.[S. 133A]

Ganesh Builders v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 257 (Jodhpur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Consultation fees in the form of syndication fees for raising Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares-The AO has taken a plausible view-Revision order is set aside. [S. 143(3)]

Finova Capital (P) Ltd. v. PCIT 2025) 233 TTJ 699 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Expenditure on scientific research-Conducted detailed enquiries into claim of deduction-Revision order is quashed. [S. 35(2AB), 143(3)]

Anabond Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 761 / 246 DTR 32 (Chennai)(Trib)