Indian Succession Act, 1925
S. 63: Execution of unprivileged wills – Registered will – Presumption of due execution -Registered will carries a strong presumption of genuineness and due execution under law -Oral family settlement – Testamentary disposition upheld where will is registered and signature admitted – Separate possession corroborates arrangement – High Court erred in treating property as joint family asset – Trial Court’s decree restoring full title and injunction in favour of legatee upheld.[ Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S. 6, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 68, 69; CPC, 1908, Order 22 Rule 10. ]
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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. 13A:Political parties – Delay in filing return – Cash donations exceeding limit – Strict compliance required –Not entitle to exemption if the return is filed after due date – Exemption denied – Appeal dismissed . [S. 13A(d), 139(1), 139(4), 139(4B), 143(3), Representation of People Act, 1951, S. 29A]
Indian National Congress v. DCIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 688 ( Delhi) ( Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Information from sales-tax authorities – Bogus purchases – Hawala parties – Estimated additions – Quantum restricted to 12. 5% of bogus purchases – Penalty is leviable . [ S.69C ] S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Information from sales-tax authorities – Bogus purchases – Hawala parties – Estimated additions – Quantum restricted to 12. 5% of bogus purchases – Penalty is leviable . [ S.69C ]
Sandeep Kewalchand Mehta. v. ACIT (2025) 212 ITD 229 (Mum) (Trib.)Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA) .
S.18:Appeal to Appellate Tribunal – Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Failure to consider written submission- Mistake apparent from record – Order is recalled – Tribunal in the original order Rashesh Manhar Bhansali v . Add.CIT ( 2022)193 ITD 141 ( Mum)( Trib) has up held the provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 can indeed be pressed into service in respect of an undisclosed foreign asset or income even if it was already in the knowledge of any Governmental authorities, other than the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, as at the point when the said legislation came into force. Accounts not in existence at the Black Money Act, 2015 came into force – The new legislation operates for those accounts and assets too.[ S. 2(11), 5(1)(i),18(7),40(1 ), 40(2) , ITAct , 132(4),254(2) R. 3(1)( e)]
Rashesh Manhar Bhansali. v. ACIT (2025) 212 ITD 210 (Mum) (Trib.) Editorial : Rashesh Manhar Bhansali v . Add.CIT ( 2022)193 ITD 141 ( Mum)( Trib) , recalled .Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 ( SARAESI ,Act )
S. 13: Enforcement of security interest – Unregistered lease agreement- Monthly tenant – Mortgage – Tenant cannot object to eviction without establishing that Tenancy was created before Mortgage- Alternative remedy – Writ is not maintainale – Appeal is allowed . [ S.13(2) , 13(4),14,17(4A), 18 , 35, Transfer of Properrty Act, 1882, S. 65A, Art. 132, 226 , 227 ]
PNB Housing Finance Ltd. v. Manoj Saha & Anr. [2025 INSC 847], MANU /SC / 913 / 2025S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Central Circle – Notice issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO ) rather than the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO)- Notice and consequential order under section 148A(d) is quashed and set aside – Liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival if the Supreme Court later reverses the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd . [ S. 148 , 148A(b), 148A(d) , 151A Art , 226 ]
Dadha Pharma LLP v. Dy.CIT ( Mad)( HC) www.itatonline.org .S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Notice must specify the charge – Notice must be precise and there should be no room for ambiguity – Veena Estate (P.) Ltd v. CIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 341/ 461 ITR 483 (Bom)( HC) , distinguished- Order of Tribunal is affirmed .[ S. 260A ]
PCIT v. Pacific Organics Pvt. Ltd., (Bom) (HC)www.itatonline.orgS. 2(22)(e): Deemed Dividend – Advance received from closely held company by its shareholder – Holding more than 10% -Commercial transaction – Not assessable as deemed dividend .
Subhash Chander Oberoi v. ACIT (2025) 233 TTJ 628 / 245 DTR 417 ( Mum)( Trib)www.itatonline.org Subhash Chander Oberoi v. ACIT( Mum)( Trib)www.itatonline.orgCompanies Act , 2013 .
S. 2(62): One person company – The separate legal personality and limited liability shield of an One Person Company (OPC) under Indian corporate law- The separate legal personality and limited liability shield of an OPC under Indian corporate law- Set aside the direction of the Arbitration Tribunal against Mr Savan Prasad . [ S. 3(1) , Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, S. 17, 37(2)(b) ]
Saravana Prasad v. Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.( Bom)( HC) www.itatonlline.orgS. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Estimate of income-Estimation of rate of NP on gross receipts-Rejection of books of account-Penalty is deleted.[S. 145]
AKM Resorts. v. ACIT (2025) 211 ITD 633 (Chd) (Trib.)