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. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Revocation of transfer order during pendency of writ and finalisation of assessments-Volte-face without reasons-Strictures passed-CBDT and Ministry of Finance directed to conduct enquiry. [S. 119, 127(2), Art. 226]

52 Weeks Entertainment Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 173 taxmann.com 615 / 345 CTR 233 / 250 DTR 401 (Bom)(HC)

S. 119 : Return-Condonation of delay-Genuine hardship-Clerical error in ITR-Incorrect ticking of audit information column resulting in rejection of return as invalid-Delay in filing revised return to cure defect to be condoned.[S. 44AB, 119(2)(b), 139, Art. 226]

Nikon Finlease (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 175 taxmann.com 867 / 345 CTR 859 / 251 DTR 161 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 115JB : Company-Book profit-Interest under S. 234B-Binding precedent of Co-ordinate Benches-Revenue bound to disclose contrary judgments-Allegation that earlier judgments were “obtained” deprecated-The duty of fairness expected from the Revenue, the Court observed that binding precedents should not be suppressed or casually attacked-Appeal dismissed. [Ss. 234B, 260A]

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2025) 345 CTR 747 / 252 DTR 65 (Bom)(HC)

S. 115BAA : Tax on income of certain domestic companies-Exercise of option-Revised return-Non-filing of Form 10-IC-CBDT Circular condoning delay does not relax requirement of exercising option in return filed under S. 139(1)-Assessee having expressly stated “none of above” not eligible-Writ dismissed [S. 115BA, 115BAB, 139(1), Art. 226, Form 10-IC]

Sarla Holdings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 345 CTR 129 / 179 taxmann.com 83 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed, Sarla Holdings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025)307 Taxman 446 (SC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Most appropriate method-TNMM consistently accepted in earlier years-Rejection without reasons-Invocation of “any other method” under Rule 10AB not justified-Assessee’s PLI higher than mean PLI of comparables-No substantial question of law [S. 260A, R. 10AB]

PCIT v. Sabic India (P) Ltd. (2025) 345 CTR 104 / 250 DTR 176 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 72A : Carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation-Amalgamation-Demerger-Relaxation of conditions under r. 9C(a)-Power of Central Government is discretionary and to be exercised only in exceptional cases-Failure to achieve stipulated capacity utilisation-Rejection of relaxation upheld-Writ petition dismissed.[S. 72A(2), R. 9C(a), Art. 226]

Cargill India (P) Ltd. v. CBDT (2025) 345 CTR 834 / 252 DTR 279 / 304 Taxman 236 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 72A : Carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation-Amalgamation-Demerger-Scheme of restructuring involving transfer of only specified assets and liabilities and consideration paid in cash and not by issue of shares-Provisions of s. 72A(4) not attracted-Assessee entitled to carry forward and set off of loss. [S. 2(19AA), 2 (19AAA), 72A(4)]

PCIT v. Nocil Ltd. (2025) 345 CTR 549 (Bom)(HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Search and seizure-Cash seized-Commission income-Mere declaration without proof of source-In absence of satisfactory explanation with supporting material, addition u/s 69A justified and taxable u/s 115BBE. [S. 115BBE, 132)

Gautham Chand Jain v. ACIT (2025) 304 Taxman 640 / 345 CTR 328 / 250 DTR 132 (Mad)(HC) Sumermal Kantilal Jain v. ACIT (2025) 304 Taxman 640 / 345 CTR 328 / 250 DTR 132 (Mad)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital / Share premium-Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness established-Deletion of addition justified-No substantial question of law. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Wise Investment (P) Ltd. (2025) 175 taxmann.com 692/ 345 CTR 218 / 251 DTR 1 (Cal)(HC) PCIT v. Femina Stock Management Company Ltd (2025) 175 taxmann.com 692/ 345 CTR 218 / 251 DTR 1 (Cal)(HC)

S. 49 : Capital gains—Previous owner—Cost of acquisition—Sale of asset received on liquidation of company—Asset received on liquidation and sold in same year—Both ss. 49(1)(iii)(c) and 55(2)(b)(iii) applicable—Proper computation to consider both transactions-The Tribunal, though accepting the legal position canvassed by the assessee, decided the issue against the assessee solely on the ground that earlier coordinate Bench decisions in cases of other assessees were adverse, instead of referring the matter to a Larger Bench. The High Court held that such an approach was incorrect-Order of Tribunal set aside and assessee’s method upheld. [S. 45, 46(2), 48, 49(1)(iii)(c), 55(2)(b)(iii), 254(1),]

T.R. Balasubramanium v. ACIT (2025) 345 CTR 526 / 251 DTR 182 (Mad)(HC)