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. 80G: Donation-Delay in filing application-Order of CIT(E) rejection of application was set aside and directed to treat application as having been filed under clause (iv)(B) of first proviso to section 80G(5)[S. 80G(5)(iv)(B)]
Foundation for Friendly Environment & Medical Awareness. v. CIT (E) (2025) 215 ITD 410 (Chennai) (Trib.)
S. 80G: Donation-Rejection of application on the ground that the objects were religious and it had expended more than 5 per cent of its income on religious activities without considering the assessee’s explanation of the assessee-Matter was remanded to the file of CIT E) for fresh examination of submission and grant approval if found eligible. [S.80G(5), 80G(5B)]
Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh Jivrajpark v. CIT (2025) 215 ITD 213 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 80G: Donation-Mentioning wrong code-Rectified by filing another Form 10AB-Rejection application by CIT E) was set aside. [S.80G(5), Form No 10AB]
Radhe Krushna Gau Sala Trust v. CIT(E) (2025) 215 ITD 32 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 80G : Donation-Knowledge based spiritual programs-Promote high moral values and not rituals or religious practices-Rejection of application by CIT E) was set aside for re-examination. [S.80G(5)(iii)]
Prayatna Charitable Trust. v. CIT(E) (2025) 215 ITD 26 (Ahd.) (Trib.)
S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Purchases-Mismatch between purchases in VAT returns and audited accounts-The difference was due to statutory compliance-Addition was deleted.
Ankur Fine Products. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 633 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Foreign travelling expenditure of daughter-borne by husband-Personal use of vehicle-Addition was deleted. [S. 132]
Lakhvir Kaur. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 39 (Chd) (Trib.)
S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash deposits-Additional evidence-Matter remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. [S. 147]
Chinthalapudi Ramakrishna. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 222 (Hyd) (Trib.)
S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash deposits-Past disclosures and withdrawals-Addition was sustained to the extent of Rs 10 lakhs.[S.44AE]
Renu Vinod Kaushal. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 12 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 69: Unexplained investment-Bonds/Debenture-Investment was made from her daughter’s bank account, where she was a nominee-Addition was deleted.
Renu Vinod Kaushal. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 12 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Jewellery-Jewellery bills found during search were not substantial-Poultry Farm Sale-Photocopy of an agreement to sell, allegedly retrieved from WhatsApp chat-Statement of buyer was not recorded-Additions on account were unjustified.[S. 131(IA), 132]
Lakhvir Kaur. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 39 (Chd) (Trib.)