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. 271B: Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Failure to furnish audit report-Principles of natural justice Quantum assessment-Turnover-Gross receipts-Opportunity of hearing-Matter remanded to the file of CIT A). [S 44AB, 250]

Gopal Agarwal v. ITO (2025) 121 ITR 74 (SN) (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 271AAB: Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-Additional ground-Undisclosed income-Penalty at 30 per cent is leviable where the assessee fails to satisfy the conditions prescribed for concessional penalty under section 271AAB(1)(a). [S. 132(4), 153A, 154, 254(1),271AAB, Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules]

Dy. CIT v. Subhash Tyagi (2025) 169 taxmann.com 623 / (2025) 121 ITR 54 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reassessment-Long-term capital gains-Penny stock-Enquiry-Bogus capital gains-Inadequate enquiry-Revision order was set aside.[S. 10(38), 45, 147, 148]

Shummy Poulose Puthanangady v. PCIT (2025) 121 ITR 81 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share capital and share premium-Lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer on valuation of shares justifies revision, though the Commissioner cannot direct a straightaway addition. [S 56(2)(viib), 143(3)]

Max Hospitals and Allied Services v. PCIT (2025) 121 ITR 33 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Book profit-Amalgamation-Depreciation-Revision is invalid where it is based on incorrect facts and the Assessing Officer has already examined the depreciation claim arising from amalgamation.[S. 32, 115JB]

VITP P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 170 taxmann.com 90 / 121 ITR 19 (SN) (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-Assessment completed after survey-One possible view taken by Assessing Officer-Explanation 2(a) to section 263 does not confer unfettered powers upon the Principal Commissioner to revise every assessment order merely because another view is possible.-Revision not valid.[S 69, 69A, 115BBE, 133A]

Alok Vijawat v. PCIT (2025) 121 ITR 481 / 178 taxmann.com 640 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 253: Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024-Revenue’s appeal-Infructuous. [Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, S. 3]

ITO v. Rashmi Chopra Estate Developers (P.) Ltd. (2025) 121 ITR 67 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.).

S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Ex parte order-Reassessment-Addition under S. 69A-Faceless proceedings-Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A). [S 69A, 147, 148, 151, 250(6)]

Shyam Sunder Talwar v. ITO (2025) 121 ITR 67 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.).

S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Power to direct enquiry-Empowered to direct the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiries and verify facts where the record so warrants-130 days delay in filing appeal-Incorrect affidavit given by the Assessing Officer-Delay was not condoned-Appeal was dismissed.[S. 153(5), 250(4)]

ITO v. Alert Consultants and Credit (P.) Ltd. (2025) 121 ITR 65 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Speaking order-Reassessment-Charitable Trust-The matter was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee..[S. 11, 12, 12A, 12AA 147, 148, 250(6)]

Pehal v. ITO (E) (2025) 121 ITR 62 (SN) (Agra)(Trib.).