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

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.

S. 51: Punishment for willful attempt to evade tax-Failure to file return-Search-Prosecution not dependent on completion of assessment-Summing order is upheld-Alternative remedy-Writ petition is dismissed, [S. 10, 50, 51, Income.Tax Act 1961 S. 131(IA), 132, 139]

Sanjay Bhandari v. ITO (2025) 473 ITR 294 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void-Writ-Recovery of tax-Attachment of property-Transfer of property-Validity-Assessee denying sale of attached property to petitioner-Transfer void ab initio-Tax Recovery Officer not required to declare sale as invalid-Petitioner given liberty to file Civil suit in Civil Court. [S. 220(6),, Sch II R.11 Art. 226]

K. N. Subramaniam v. PCIT (2025) 473 ITR 439 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-Compounding of offence-Compounding application could not have been rejected on delay alone-Limitation-CBDT guidelines dated 16 November 2022.[S. 279(2), Art.226]

L. T. Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCIT (Bom) (HC)(UR)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-Certain categories of offences not to be compounded other than first offence-Wilful failure to file returns in due time-“First offence” as defined in Guidelines-Failure to file return before due date for assessment year 2013-2014 despite issue of notice for not filing in time for assessment year 2011-2012-Offence committed by assessee not first offence-Rejection of application in consonance with Guidelines; Guidelines for Compounding of Offences under Direct Tax Laws, 2008 (2015) 371 ITR 7 (St). [S. 139, 276CC279(2), Art. 226]

Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v. Chief CIT (2025) 473 ITR 387 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 276: Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Delay in payment of tax does not amount to evasion of tax-Prosecution is not valid.[S. 276(2)]

Hansa Metallics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 472 ITR 737 (P&H) (HC)

S. 275: : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Failure to deduct tax at source-Survey-Notice for penalty after five years-The penalty order is barred by limitation if issued after the statutory time frame of six months from the end of the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated-Notice and penalty is unsustainable.m [S. 260A, 271C, 272A(2)(c) (k), 275(1)(c)]

CIT (TDS) v. Adma Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 473 ITR 36 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Curable defects-The penalty order for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) is valid even if issued in the old name of the company after a name change, if the entity remains the same. [S. 260A, 272A(c) (k) 292B]

CIT (TDS) v. Adma Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 473 ITR 36 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 271AAA: Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Undisclosed income-Disclosure in the course of search-Bleted payment of tax and interest-Fulfilment of all three conditions stipulated under subsection (2) mandatory-Levy of penalty is justified. [S. 132 (4), 260A]

K. Krishnamurthy v. Dy. CIT (2025) 473 ITR 553 (Karn)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-The part consideration on account of immovable property sold was not received as cheques dishonoured-The assessee did not offer Capital Gain to tax during the relevant assessment year-Pr. CIT found that the AO did not examine details regarding dishonour of cheques-Assessment Order to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-S. 263, Explanation 2(a). [S. 45, 260A]

M.R. Apparels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 168 taxmann.com 197 / (2025) 472 ITR 793 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed,.R. Apparels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 472 ITR 799 (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Non-resident-AO allowed the claim under India-Singapore DTAA-CITA initiated the revisions proceedings on the ground that the assessee conduit company used for treaty shopping-without putting the allegation in the 263 notice-The assessee has not been heard on the said issue-Revision is bad in law-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore [S.9(1)(vii), 260A, Art. 12]

CIT (IT) v. Zebra Technologies Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (2025) 472 ITR 745 (Delhi) (HC)