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. 244A: Refund-Interest on refund-Delay in filing return condoned-Assessee not at fault-Deductor failed to intimate TDS and issue Form 16A-Interest payable from date of TDS deposit till date of refund-Delay of 471 days-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [S. 119(2)(b), 194LA, Rule 13 of IT Rules, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Chandrikaben Rajeshbhai Undhad [2025] 306 Taxman 347 (SC) Editorial : Mohanbhai Madhavjibhai Bharad v. PCIT(2024) 158 taxmann.com 13/ 465 ITR 313 (Guj)(HC)

S. 244A: Refund-Interest on refund-Delay in filing return condoned-Assessee not at fault for non-claim of refund-Deductor failed to inform TDS and issue Form 16A-Interest payable from date of TDS deposit till the date of refund-Delay of 457 days-SLP dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [S.119(2)(b), 194LA, Rule 13 of IT Rules, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Bhimjibhai Madhavjibhai Bharad [2025] 306 Taxman 334 (SC) Editorial : Bhimjibhai Madhavjibhai Bharad v.PCIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 13/ 465 ITR 313 (Guj)(HC)

S. 206C : Collection at source-Trading-Forest produce-Illegal mining-TCS applies only to payments by lease/license/contract-holders and cannot extend to compounding fees/fines from illegal miners-Order of Tribunal set aside. [S.133A, 206(IC), MMDR Act, 23A(1), R.71(5)]

Collector Mining, Kanker v. DCIT (TDS) (2025) 306 Taxman 362 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source-Contractors-Slum rehabilitation scheme on a particular plot of land-Transferable development rights (TDR)-Assessee having made out a prima facie case, implementation and operation of impugned order passed under sections 201 and 201(1A) deserved to be stayed, and consequently, demand and penalty notices were also to be stayed-Revenue was directed to file reply on or before 25th August 2025. [S.194B, 194LA, 194R, 201, 201(IA), 271C, 274, MRTP Act, 1966, S.126, Art. 226]

Pune Municipal Corporation v. ACIT, TDS (2025)306 Taxman 175 (Bom.)(HC)

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)