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. 68 : Cash credits-Share application-Accommodation entries-Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions are established-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed-Statement is retracted-Order of Tribunal is affirmed [S. 132(4), 260A]

PCIT v. Esspal International (P.) Ltd.(2025) 473 ITR 329 (Raj) (HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-No credible document produced to show why payment had to be made on bank holiday-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [R.6DD, 260A]

Santosh M. Bhandari v. ITO (2025) 473 ITR 646 (Karn)(HC)

S. 12A : Registration-Trust or institution-No activities had been carried on-Rejection of application is not justified-Order Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 11, 12AA, 260A]

CIT v. International Health Care Education and Research Institute (2025) 473 ITR 753 /171 taxmann.com 578 (Raj)(HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed, CIT v. International Health Care Education and Research Institute (2025) 304 Taxman 265/ 482 ITR287(SC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Multiple objectives beyond educational purposes-Not founded and existed solely for educational purposes-Denial of exemption is affirmed. [S. 10(23C)(vi), Art. 226]

Shri Guru Hargobind Sahib Charitable Trust v. CBDT (2025) 473 ITR 580 (P&H)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Sub-licensed sports broadcasting rights in relation to live feeds to Indian company-live feed cannot constitute a scientific work-Fees received cannot be considered as royalty-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art. 12]

CIT v. (IT) v. Fox Network Group Singapore Pte. Ltd. (2024) 158 Taxmann.com 434 (2025) 473 ITR 528 (Delhi)(HC) CIT v. (IT) v. ESS (2024) 158 Taxmann.com 434 (2025) 473 ITR 528 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 56: Income from other sources – Long term capital loss -Share transfer agreement – Shares sold at an undervalued price – Related party transaction – AO claimed that the transaction was structured to avoid tax – Shares valued at upwards of Rs 19000 , per share were sold for Rs 100 per share – Valuation was not in accordance with Rule 11UA – Matter remanded back to AO for recalculating capital gains. [ S. 45 ,56(2)(vii)(b), 56(2)(x), R.11UA(1)(c)(v) ]

DCIT v. M. Mahadevan ( Chennai )( Trib) www.itatonline.org.

S.36(1)(iii): Interest on borrowed capital –Interest on ICDs used for giving interest-free security deposit for getting the premises on leave and license – Business purpose – Interest is allowed as deduction. [ S. 37(1)]

ACIT v. JM Financial Properties and Holdings Ltd ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org.

S. 6(1) : Residence in India – Individual -Stayed more than 60 days in each year – More than 365 days in india for a period or periods amounting to all to 365 days or more -More than 183 days for AY. 2013 -14 & 2014-15 – Control and management office is located in Chennai , India – Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) data and travelling on a social/tourist visa – Business not the purpose of the travel interest – Resident – Global income taxable and credit available to assessee- Credit for Foreign taxes paid is directed to be allowed , subject to verification- DTAA -India -UAE [ S. 6(1)(a), 6(1)( c), 6(4) , 90, 91, 132 , Art. 4 ]

DCIT v. M. Mahadevan ( Chennai )( Trib) www.itatonline.org.

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Compensation – Surrender of premises – Allocated flat as compensation to remove illegal occupant – The value of flat received by the assessee as compensation for removing nuisance shall constitute capital receipt – Not taxable. [ S. 2(24),54F, 56(2)(vii)( b )]

Mohammed Fakhre Alam Shaikh v. The Assessing Officer. ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 4 : Prohibition of right to recover property held benami-Fiduciary capacity-Joint ownership suit property-known sources-Absence of documents evidencing existence of a fiduciary relationship and existence of corpus of funds made available by plaintiff from his/her known sources-Claim of ownership is barred. [S. 2(9)(A)(ii)]

Paramjit Singh v. Ms Gagan Singh @ Mannu (2025) 302 Taxman 65 (Delhi)(HC)