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. 80IB: Industrial undertakings-Manufacture or production-Production of paints, varnish and thinners-Casual workers-The undertaking engaging ten or more workers-Entitled to exemption.
Jaydeep Petro Chem Company (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 237 TTJ 316 / 176 taxmann.com 871 (Chennai) (Trib.)
S.80IA: Industrial undertakings-Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development-Claim was not made in the return-Additional ground before CIT(A)-The disputed claim of deduction under S. 80-IA(4) was neither made in the original return nor in any revised return till the conclusion of the assessment proceedings-Claim was made first time before CIT(A)-Additional ground was rejected-Not eligible for deduction.[S. 80A(5),80IA(4), 139(1), 139 (4), 250]
BSC C & C Joint Venture v. ACIT (2025) 237 TTJ 377(Delhi)(Trib)
S.80IA: Industrial undertakings-Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development-Sale of steam by one eligible unit to other eligible unit for captive consumption-Rejecting the comparable of the assessee and the enhancement made by the DRP by giving direction to treat the claim of deduction under s. 80-IA for steam transfer as ‘Nil’ is set aside-Claim of deduction is allowed.
Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 268 / 177 taxmann.com 118 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 80G: Donation-Medical relief to the poor in rural areas-Rejection of application by CIT(E) is set aside and directed to approve. [S.2(15),80G(5)]
Matha Medical Centre Trust v. CIT(E) (2025) 237 TTJ 613 (Chennai)(Trib)
S. 80G: Donation-Recognition of institution, etc-CIT(E) has not brought any material on record to show that the activities of the assessee trust are not genuine or the conditions as specified above are not fulfilled by the assessee-trust-CIT(E) is directed to grant approval under s. 80G to the assessee-trust. [S.11, 12A, 80G(5)]
Academy of Liberal Education v. CIT(E) (2025) 237 TTJ 366 / 176 taxmann.com 675 (Bang) (Trib.)
S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Alleged bogus purchases-Produced documentary evidence such as purchase invoices, stock records, RTGS payments, GST returns, supplier confirmations, and segment-wise accounts-Matter was remanded back to the AO to obtain the bank account details of MT Co., and verify whether there exists any cash trail; if no such cashback trail is established upon verification, and payments are found to have remained within the banking system, then the addition is to be restricted only to the embedded profit element @ 5 per cent. [S. 145]
Leela Greenship Recycling (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 471/ 180 taxmann.com 407 (Ahd)(Trib)
S. 69A: Unexplained money-Credit card expenses incurred in representative capacity-Reimbursed expenses-Addition was deleted-Seizure of gold jewellery-Source explained-Addition was deleted. [S. 132]
Paul Dhinakaran v. DCIT(2025) 237 TTJ 850 (Chennai)(Trib)
S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash deposit in bank account-Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A)-Reassessment was affirmed.[S. 147, 148]
Akshat Loyalka v. ITO (E) (2025) 237 TTJ 200/ 126 ITR 373/ 175 taxmann.com 42 (Jaipur)(Trib.)
S. 69: Unexplained investments-Non-Resident-Investment in property-Co-owner-Source of investment was explained-Addition was deleted.
Nilesh Purshottam Ghodasara v. DCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 618 (Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 69: Unexplained investments-Capital introduced by partner-The explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be rejected merely on suspicion-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition was affirmed.
ITO v. Kalidas Jivabhai Patel (2025) 237 TTJ 95 (Ahd)(Trib)