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. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-
Not specifying the charge, whether it was for under-reporting or misreporting of income-Penalty order was void ab initio and not sustainable in law-Penalty was deleted. [S. 45, 54F, 274]

Snehalkumar Bhogilal Trivedi. v.NFAC(2025) 214 ITD 426 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Donations-CSR activities-Allowed deduction under section 80G-Revision order was set aside. [S.80G, 143(3)]

Jashan Jewels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 214 ITD 112 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Road Project-Building, operating and transferring a section of national highway-Road construction project-Intangible asset-Eligible depreciation-Mercantile system of accounting-Negative grant-Depreciation on negative grant which was to be paid to NHAI-Depreciation allowable-Revision order set aside.[S. 32 143(3),145]

IRCON Soma Tollway (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 214 ITD 139 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Agricultural income-Coffee curing-Specific queries during original assessment proceedings-Rule 7B deeming part of income as business income-Revision order was quashed. [S. 2(IA) 28(1),143(3), R.7B]

C. T. Ramanathan (HUF) v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 96 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cost of improvement-Limited scrutiny-Allowed claim towards cost of improvement under section 48 without conducting an inquiry or verification-Revision order affirmed. [S. 48, 54B]

Avinash Dattatray Muley. v. PCIT (2025) 214 ITD 151 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 249: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Delay of 1386 days-Ex parte assessment-Non-receipt of notices as they were issued to the jail Superintendent while assessee’s father was in jail-Delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the file of CIT(A) for decision on merits.[S. 144]

Rishabh Dev. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 766 (Dehradun) (Trib.)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-TDS was not allowed by the Assessing Officer/CPC due to an error in writing the wrong alphabet in PAN-The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.[S. 154]

Bengal GHG Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 47 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 194A: Deduction at source-Interest other than interest on securities-Acquisition of loan-Purchased loans (including NCDs, ICDs and term loans)-No part of consideration paid by assessee could be termed as ‘interest’ paid by assessee to transferors-No obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194A. [S. 2(28, 133B(2), 201(1), 201(IA)]

DCIT (TDS) v. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. (2025) 214 ITD 406 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 151: Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice –Notice beyond a period of three years-Assessing Officer was statutorily obligated to have obtained approval from either of the authorities specified under section 151(ii) as per section 151 as amended by Finance Act, 2021, effective from 1-4-2021-Reassessment notice and consequential orders were quashed.[S.68, 148, 147,151 (ii)]

Nandigam Veerabrahmam. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 553 (Visakha) (Trib.)

S. 151: Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice –Notice under section 148 was issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without approval from the authority prescribed under section 151(ii)-Reassessment proceedings were invalid. [S. 148, 151(ii)]

Karia Builders. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 161 (Pune) (Trib.)