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. 188A: Firm-Joint and Several Liability of Partners-Dissolution of firm-Liability of sleeping partner-Liable to tax liability incurred by the firm. [Art. 226]

S.Pushpa v. PCIT (2025) 306 Taxman 197 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Proceedings must be taken under S. 153C read with assessment under S. 153A), and not under S. 148/147-Delay of 322 and 358 days-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits.[S. 147, 148, 153A, Art. 136]

ACIT v. Pramod Jain (2025) 306 Taxman 162 (SC) Editorial : Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v.ACIT (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Raj)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Not recording of satisfaction-No incriminating material-Abated-Proceedings invalid-SLP of revenue dismissed.[S. 153A, Art. 136]

ACIT v. Neelkanth Steel and Alloys (2025) 306 Taxman 100 (SC) Editorial : Saksham Commodities Ltd v. ITO (2024) 161 taxmann.com 485/ 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 151A: Face less assessment scheme-Reassessment-Notice issued without mandatory faceless mechanism-After expiry of three years-Approval by authority not as pre provisions of S. 151(ii)-Proceedings invalid-Delay of 248 days-SLP was dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151(i), 151(ii), Art. 136]

ITO v. Prakash Pandurang Patil [2025] 306 Taxman 341 (SC)] Editorial : Prakash Pandurang Patil v.ITO (2025) 177 taxmann.com 552 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Return in response to section 148 was delayed due technical constraint-Faceless assessment-Assessment order quashed and set aside-Directed to consider the exemption. [S.10(23), 144B, 148, Art. 226]

Alleppey Sarvodaya Sangh v. ITO (2025) 306 Taxman 192 (Ker)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Principle of natural justice-Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)-Time allowed for reply to notice under section 148A(b) was 4 days instead of 7 days as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the CBDT-No prejudice caused to the assessee merely because 4 days were provided instead of 7 days as suggested in SOP-Writ petition dismissed. [S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), Art. 226]

Mukul Mahanta v. UOI [2025] 306 Taxman 38 (Cal)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-A reassessment notice that was already time-barred before 1-4-2021 under the erstwhile law cannot be revived by applying Sec. 149(1)(b) (w.e.f. 1-4-2021)-Reassessment proceedings (including those routed through Ashish Agarwal judgement) would still be beyond limitation-the Revenue’s SLP was dismissed for delay.[S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, TOLA, 2020, S. 3 Art. 136]

ACIT v. Elan Capital Advisors (P.) Ltd(2025) 306 Taxman 336 (SC) Editorial : Virendra Ship Recyclers LLP v.ACIT(2025) 170 taxmann.com 558 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Satisfaction of Assessing Officer at notice stage is sufficient for reopening-SLP assessee dismissed. [S. 147, 148A (b), 148A (d), Art. 136]

Vivek Kumar v. ITO (2025) 306 Taxman 101 (SC) Editorial: Vivek Kumar v. ITO (2025)175 taxmann.com 864 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Cash credits-Notice must be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO)-Notice issued by JAO is a fatal defect and quashed.[S. 147, Art. 226]

Caishen Enterprise LLP v. ACIT(2025) 306 Taxman 138 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Depreciation-Survey-Examined during the original assessment proceedings-Reassessment not valid-Omission to pass a speaking order on receipt of objections cannot be considered as fatal.[S. 133A,143(3), 148, Art. 226]

SI Property (Kerala) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 306 Taxman 44 (Ker.)(HC)