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.56: Income from other sources – Immovable property – Redevelopment agreement – Permanent alternate accommodation allotted in lieu of surrender of tenancy rights – Redevelopment project incomplete and possession of alternate premises not handed over – Mere execution and registration of redevelopment agreement did not amount to receipt of immovable property – Assessee acquired only a contractual right to receive flat in future – Transaction supported by valuable consideration in the form of surrender of tenancy rights and could not be regarded as receipt of property without consideration – Section 56(2)(x) not applicable – Addition deleted.[ S. 56(2)(x) ]
Manoj Devshichhadva v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org]
S.56: Income from other sources – Purchase of immovable property below stamp duty value – Difference between actual consideration and stamp duty value – Assessee specifically disputed stamp duty valuation and requested reference to DVO – Property jointly purchased by assessee and his wife in specified shares – CIT(A) failed to refer valuation to DVO and confirmed entire difference in assessee’s hands merely because wife’s case had not been assessed – Entire difference could not be taxed in hands of assessee ignoring his specific ownership share – Matter restored to AO for reference to DVO and determination of taxable difference – Assessee’s appeal allowed for statistical purposes. [S. 50C(2)(x)(b)]
Shyamsunder Bansidhar Reengusia v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org]
S.148: Reassessment – Validity of notice – Service of notice – Notice under section 148 affixed at an unrelated locked premises without establishing any connection of assessee with the premises – Departmental record itself indicated that assessee did not reside at the said address – Subsequent notices also returned with endorsement “LEFT” – Assessee objected to non-service before completion of assessment – Deemed service under section 292BB not applicable – Reassessment proceedings without valid service of jurisdictional notice under section 148 were invalid and assessment was quashed – Additions under sections 69C and 68 consequently deleted. [S. 68, 69C, 131, 144, 147, 282, 292BB, Rule 127.]
Ravi Dilip Waghela v. ITO Mum.)(Trib.) [www.itatonline.org]
S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure -Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – Sales accepted and books of account not rejected under section 145(3) –Furnished books of account, purchase invoices, payment details through banking channels and other supporting evidence – Addition based merely on non-response of suppliers to notices under section 133(6) and cancellation of GST registrations – Once corresponding sales were accepted, purchases could not be disbelieved or disallowed in entirety – Finding of Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence was a finding of fact – No substantial question of law arose – Revenue’s appeal dismissed. [S. 69A, 69C, 115BBE, 133(6), 145(3), 260A.]
PCIT v. Pravesh Kumar Jaiswal (Cal.)(HC) [www.itatonline.org]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Enforcement of arbitral award – Virtual hearing – Counsel appearing from a moving car – Stamp duty – Arbitral award dated 13-11-2024 – Stamp duty paid only on 24-12-2025, beyond one month from the date of execution – Payment held not in consonance with the judgment in M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India – Decree holder directed to furnish proof of payment of stamp duty along with penalty – Matter listed for compliance. Counsel appearing from a moving car during virtual hearing – Conduct held contrary to Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 – Cost of ₹1 lakh imposed, payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. [Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. ]
South Indian Bank Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (Delhi)(HC) [www.itatonline.org]
Interest-tax Act, 1974
S. 2(7) : Interest-Subsidy received from RBI-Export Credit-Subsidy Scheme-Not interest-Not chargeable to tax. [S. 4, 260A, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934(2 of 1934) S.42(IB)]
Bank of India v. DCIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 905 (Bom) (HC)
Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020
S. 3: Amount payable by declarant-Belated amendment of appeal memo after filing declaration under DTVSV Scheme was inadmissible-Amount payable by declarant-Case was treated as non-search case, amount payable under DTVSV Scheme was to be calculated at 100 per cent and not 125 per cent. [S.10(38), 45 68, 132, 271(1)(c), CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2020, Art. 226]
Umesh Navnitlal Shah HUF v. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 674/2026] 489 ITR 537 (Bom.)(HC)
Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015]
S. 43: Penalty-Failure to furnish in return of income, an information or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset-Non-disclosure of foreign investment in Schedule FA-Investment held in assessee’s name only for administrative convenience and disclosed by husband-Penalty deleted-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.260A]
PCIT v. Aditi Avinash Athavankar [2025] 180 taxmann.com 476 (Bom)(HC)
S. 278B: Offences and prosecutions-Companies-Liability of director-Part-time director-The criminal complaint against assessee was quashed and set aside. [S. 276C(2), 278B(2)]
Pinakin Kantilal Patel v. DCIT [2025] 177 taxmann.com 364 (Bom) (HC)
S. 278B: Offences and prosecutions-Companies-Offences by firms-Impleadment of partners-Sessions Judge erred in allowing application for impleadment of partners; accordingly, order directing impleadment of partners was set aside. [The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 319.]
Shah Rameshchandra Nihalchand & Co. v. S. Bose Commissioner of Tax-13 [2025] 176 taxmann.com 756 / [2026] 490 ITR 518 (Bom)(HC)