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. 279: Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner / Commissioner-Compounding of offences-Rejection of application for compounding solely on ground of delay of 36 months from date of complaint as per CBDT Guidelines-Act does not prescribe limitation-Mechanical rejection without exercising discretion held improper-Order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration. [S. 279(2), Art. 226]

L.T. Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief CIT (2025) 480 ITR 26 (Bom)(HC).

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Jurisdiction to be tested with reference to law prevailing on date of exercise of revisional power-Subsequent Supreme Court decision cannot invalidate revision-Lack of enquiry by Assessing Officer on section 32AB deduction and computation of book profits under section 115J rendered assessment erroneous and prejudicial-Commissioner’s order to be read as a whole and not by isolating one sentence-Where assessee did not challenge order giving effect to section 263, merits could not thereafter be agitated-Tribunal upholding assumption of jurisdiction affirmed. [S. 32AB, 115J, 260A]

KEC International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 480 ITR 138 / 304 Taxman 132 (Bom)(HC).

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Order passed by Tribunal in 2018-No endeavour by Department during six years to pursue matter-Matter must have reached finality-Appeal disposed of keeping questions of law open.

PCIT v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd (2025) 480 ITR 657 / 180 taxmann.com 742 (Orissa) (HC) Editorial : PCIT v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd (2025) 480 ITR 659 /181 taxmann.com 346 (SC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Order passed by Tribunal in 2018-No endeavour by Department during six years to pursue matter-Matter must have reached finality-Appeal disposed of keeping questions of law open-Appeal cannot be dismissed on ground that appellant made no efforts to get it listed Failure to answer question put by court not ground to dismiss appeal-Appeal restored to High Court.[Art. 136]

PCIT v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd (2025) 480 ITR 659 /181 taxmann.com 346 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd (2025) 480 ITR 657 / 180 taxmann.com 742 (Orissa) (HC)

S. 245H : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Power-Grant of immunity from prosecution and penalty-High Court setting aside order of Settlement Commission and remanding matter for reconsideration on ground that assessee had not made full and true disclosure at the outset-Special Leave Petition dismissed with clarification that remand direction of High Court would remain unaffected and matter to be examined afresh in accordance with law without being influenced by observations of High Court. [S. 245C, Art. 136]

Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 480 ITR 496 (SC). Editorial: CIT v. Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 483 ITR 621 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Law amended with retrospective effect from 1-2-2021, but notified on 1-4-2021-Application filed prior to 31-3-2021-No prohibition in statute as on that date for assessee to make such application-Interim Board holding applications invalid-High Court held order of Interim Board not sustainable and remanded matters for consideration on merits-SLP dismissed-Question of law kept open [Ss. 245A(b), 245C, 245D(4), Art. 136].

Interim Board for Settlement v. Krushang Prakashbhai Soni (2025) 480 ITR 695 (SC). Editorial : Vetrivel Infrastructure v. Dy. CIT (2024) 468 ITR 665 (Guj)(HC).

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Immunity from penalty and prosecution-High Court held that there was no foundation for finding of full and true disclosure by Settlement Commission-Matter remanded for reconsideration of grant of immunity-Review petition dismissed-SLP dismissed by Supreme Court with clarification that Settlement Commission shall decide matter independently in accordance with law and without being influenced by observations of High Court. [S. 245H, Art. 136]

Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 480 ITR 496 (SC). Editorial : CIT v. Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 483 ITR 621 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 237 : Refund-Limitation-Excess TDS-CBDT Circular prescribing two-year time limit for refund claim of tax erroneously deducted at source held ultra vires-In absence of statutory limitation under ss. 237/239, Board cannot curtail substantive right to claim refund-Interest on FCCBs/ECBs utilised for overseas subsidiary held covered by s. 9(1)(v)(b), hence no TDS deductible-Taxing statutes are interpreted by following the principles of strict interpretation. While interpreting a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment. [S. 9(1)(v)(b), 119, 195, 200, 203, 239, R. 31, Art. 226]

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 480 ITR 164 / 171 taxmann.com 469 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds -Erroneous deposit of tax under incorrect head-Assessee subsequently deposited tax under correct head -Excess payment due to error not disputed -Department directed to verify challans and grant refund if no other impediment -If refund cannot be processed, reasons to be communicated in writing -Assessee entitled to avail remedies in accordance with law. [Art. 226]

Remote Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 480 ITR 24 / 180 taxmann.com 209 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Book profit-In fiscal matters, bank guarantee is not an appropriate substitute for cash deposit and unconditional stay should ordinarily not be granted. [S.115J, Art. 226]

Malco Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 480 ITR 250 / 304 Taxman 61 (Bom)(HC), Editorial : SLP dismissed,, Malco Energy Ltd v. ACIT (2025) 480 ITR 257 / 304 Taxman 586 (SC).