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. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Excise duty exemption Purpose test formulated by Supreme Court Excise duty exemption granted for purpose of industrialisation and generation of employment in States-Excise duty exemption capital receipt-Book profit-Excise duty exemption availed being in nature of capital receipt and not chargeable to tax under normal provisions cannot be added in book profit. [S.115JB]

PCIT v. Greenply Industries Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 347 /304 Taxman 192 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Income or capital-Sales tax incentive received from State Government under West Bengal Industrial Promotion Scheme-Capital receipt-Appellate Tribunal-Power-The Tribunal has the power to entertain a claim of deduction not claimed before the Assessing Officer by filing revised return. [S. 139,254(1)]

PCIT v. Ritum Jain. (2025) 476 ITR 69 (Cal)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Forfeiture of earnest money arising out of agreement to sale a property is not liable to tax–Income from other sources-Capital receipt-Advance received under agreement to sell-Forfeited-Receipt would go to reduce cost of acquisition of asset-Cannot be assessed as income from other sources-Appeal of revenue dismissed. [S. 51, 56(2)(vi), Art. 136]

CIT v. Meera Goyal (2025) 476 ITR 152 (SC) Editorial : Order of High Court affirmed, CIT v. Meera Goyal (2013] 214 Taxman 298 / (2014) 360 ITR 346/267 CTR 265 (Delhi)(HC)

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

S. 10(3) :Assessment – Charge of tax Undisclosed foreign asset – Asset ceased before 1.7.2015 – Not taxable – Penalty – Non-disclosure of asset – Ceased before AY 2012–13 -Penalty not leviable. – Doctrine of election/approbate and reprobate- Once proceedings under the IT Act are consciously chosen, the Revenue cannot subsequently invoke BMA. [ S. 2(11), 3(1) , 41, 43 ,BMA Valuation Rule, 3, Income tax Act , 1961 , S. 90, 131(IA), 132, 132(4) , 132(4A) , 292C ]

Deepak Jain v. ACIT ( Delhi)(Trib) www . itatonline ,org

S. 45 : Capital Gains – Sale of Film Rights – Transfer of bundle of rights in 31 cinematographic films held to be transfer of capital assets – Consideration received taxable as capital gains and not as business income. [ S.2(11)(B), 2(14) 28(i), 28(va) 55(2)(a) ]

ACIT v. Eagle Films (Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org .

Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020

S. 3: Dispute resolution-Fundamental aim to settle matters and issues that existed on the relevant date; not to create liability on issues on which parties were already ad idem-Failure to make requisite disclosures does not defeat reliefs granted in assessment-Designated authority may rectify apparent mistakes in Form 3-Beneficial statutes to be interpreted liberally. [S. 4, 5, Form No. 3; Art. 226]

Fresh Pet Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT, [2024] 167 taxmann.com 223 / (2025) 475 ITR 269 (Delhi HC).

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Capital gains-Evasion of tax-Construction business-Mere filing of capital account does not amount to full and proper disclosure-Order of Tribunal affirming the penalty was affirmed. [S. 147, 260A, Expln. 1, 271(1)(c)]

Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 475 ITR 115 / 171 taxmann.com 472 (Bom)(HC) Editorial: Refer Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 341 / 461 ITR 483 / 336 CTR 688 (Bom)(HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident payments-Royalty
Payments for online advertisements to FB, AWS, RSC not royalty-No TDS liability-DTAA-India-USA.[S. 9(1)(vi), 201(1), 201(1A), 260A, Art. 12(3)]

CIT (IT) v. Urban Ladder Home Decor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 475 ITR 518 / 304 Taxman 155 (Karn)(HC)

S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Block assessment-Satisfaction note of searched person not indicating anything against third party assessee-CBDT circular binding on assessing authority-Assessment orders and notices invalid for absence of satisfaction. [S. 132, 158BD, 260A]

CIT v. SRM Systems and Software Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 475 ITR 387 / 171 taxmann.com 764 (Mad.)(HC).

S. 153: : Assessment-Reassessment-Limitation –Order of assessment passed on 28-12-2006 but communicated to assessee only on 5-1-2007-Assessment orders dated 28-12-2006 and penalty order dt. 29-6-2007 were barred by limitation-Alternative remedy not absolute bar for issue of writ. [S. 148, 153(1), 153(2), Art. 226

Mema Paul and others v. ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 778 / (2025) 475 ITR 19 (Manipur)(HC)