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 expenditure-The expenses in dispute were already capitalized-No prejudice to revenue-Revision order is quashed.[S.37(1)]

Kool Home Builders v. PCIT [2025] 210 ITD 16 (Cochin)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Short term capital loss-Section 263 cannot be used just because the PCIT holds a different view-No finding of lack of enquiry or perversity in AO’s conclusion-Reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute AO’s discretion where AO acted judiciously.[S. 143(3)]

Surplus Finvest Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT(Mum) (Trib)(UR)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Since all necessary verification and examination of documents in reasonable manner was done, the assessment order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial within the meaning of s. 263, Expln. 2-Revision order is set aside. [S. 143(3), 147, 148]

Bhupinder Singh v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 675 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 251: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-CIT(A) did not give opportunity to assessee for hearing-Held, CIT(A) does not have power to dismiss appeal summarily without going on merits-matter back to NFAC for de novo consideration. [S. 250, 251(1)(a), 251(2)]

Mushtaq Ahmad Buhroo v. ITO (2025) 233 TTJ 877 (Amritsar)(Trib)

S. 251: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-CIT (A) has wide powers akin to reassessment authority and must ensure thorough adjudication while deleting additions made by AO-Matter remanded back to AO to conduct fresh enquiries.[S. 250]

Dy.CIT v. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025) 233 TTJ 796 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds-Refund to be adjusted first from the outstanding interest and thereafter the principal amount.

Nirma Ltd v. DCIT. [2025] 172 taxmann.com 429 (Ahd)(Trib)

S.199: Deduction of tax at source-Credit for tax deducted-Sale of jointly owned immovable property-The property was jointly owned, and the capital gain was shared equally between the spouses cannot be the sole reason for disallowing the TDS credit.

Rahul Dinesh Bajpai v. Dy. DIT [2025] 210 ITD 307 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 199: Deduction of tax at source-Credit for tax deducted-The contract was terminated, the income did not accrue, and the advance was refunded-Entitled to claim a refund of the TDS deducted on the advance paid by the party. [R. 37BA(3), Art. 265]

LEC-TPL UJV v. ITO (2025) 210 ITD 79 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 194A: Deduction of tax at source-Interest other than interest on securities-Assessee in default-Reimbursement of interest to Group Company-Not liable to deduct TDS by the Assessee-Levy of interest is deleted. [S. 201(1), 201(IA)]

KD Lite Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2025] 210 ITD 384 (Mum)(Trib.)

S.156A: Modification and revision of notice in certain cases-Demand and recovery-Since the resolution plan has yet to be finalized, remanding the appeal to the AO is necessary-The AO will take the required steps before the NCLT in compliance with s.156A and the IBC provisions. [S. 156, 178, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016S. 14]

Manz Retail (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2025] 210 ITD 12 (Mum)(Trib.)