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.271D: Penalty]-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit]-Immovable property-Amount received for providing additional amenities in the houses sold by the builder-Definition of consideration for transfer of immovable property referred to in s. 194-IA cannot be applied to consideration received for additional amenities]-Penalty was deleted. [S. 132(4), 194IA, 269SS]

DCITv. Tapadiya Construction Ltd. (2025) 236 TTJ 216 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 271AAB: Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-Not specifying the charge-Omnibus notice betrays application of mind by the AO-Entire penalty proceedings right from issue of notice to imposition of penalty are ab initio void-Penalty quashed. [S.274]

St. Joseph’s Educational Trust v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026] 133 ITR 328 (Chennai)(Trib) St.Joseph’s Institute of Science & Technology trust v.Dy.CIT 2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026] 133 ITR 328 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty]-Concealment-Surrender of claim of exemption under s. 54F-Debatable issue-Not liable for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.[S.54F]

DCIT v. Sahil Vachani (2025) 236 TTJ 137 / 126 ITR 172/ 175 taxmann.com 979 (Delhi)(TM)(Trib)

S. 270A: Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Non-specification of charge/fault in the show-cause notice-Absence of proper charge vitiates the penalty notices-Levy of penalty was quashed. [S. 274]

St. Joseph’s Educational Trust v. DCIT (2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026) 133 ITR 328 (Chennai) (Trib) St.Joseph’s Institute of Science & Technology Trust v. Dy.CIT 2025) 236 TTJ 507 / 175 taxmann.com 284 / (2026) 133 ITR 328 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of proper enquiry-Cost of improvement]-Allowed the claim after verification-AO’s order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue-Revision order was quashed. [S. 45, 55(1)(b)(2)]

Arjun Das Jasuja v. CIT (2025) 236 TTJ 373 (Ahd)(Trib.)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Information gathered from the Google search engine cannot be the basis for arriving at a decision-Tribunal cannot bring new facts on record, specially gathered from external sources/public domain, which do not form part of the orders passed by the lower authorities without confronting the same to the assessee.

DCIT v. Sahil Vachani (2025) 236 TTJ 137 / 126 ITR 172/ 175 taxmann.com 979 ((Delhi)(TM)(Trib)

S. 253: Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Filing fee-Old regime or new regime]-No variation on quantification on assessed income-In terms of provisions of S 253(6), Clause (d) is applicable: filing fees only Rs 500; no defect in filing fees]-Delay of 71 days in filing an appeal was condoned. [S.115BC, 253(6)(d), 254(1)]

Arun Gopilal SamnanI v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 258/ 174 taxmann.com 33 (Ahd)(Trib) Bhargavkumar Parsottambhai Patel (HUF) v. ITO (2025) 236 TTJ 258/ 174 taxmann.com 33 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)]-Procedure-Condonation of delay-Refusal to condonation of delay and decision on merits-Once the appeal is not admitted on account of delay, the CIT(A) cannot proceed to decide the issue on merit-When CIT(A) has decided the issue on merit despite the delay in filing the appeal, it is deemed or implied that the CIT(A) has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. [S. 249(3), 251, 253]

The Zoos & Parks Authority Of Telangana v.Dy.CIT (E) (2025) 236 TTJ 117/ 174 taxmann.com 1136 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)]-Procedure]-Duty Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss appeal on account of non-prosecution of appeal by assessee Duty-bound to dispose of the appeal through a speaking order on merits, on all the points which arose for determination in the appellate proceedings, including on all the grounds of appeal-Order of the CIT(A) is set aside and he is directed to pass de novo order as per law, in accordance with law. [250(6), 251 (2)]

Praksh Pushparaj Golcha v. ACIT (2025) 236 TTJ 14 / 174 taxmann.com 219 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 249: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Condonation of delay]-Delay of 5 years and 19 days-Reasonable cause-Order of the CIT(A) in not admitting the appeal of the assessee is quashed, and the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on its own merits.[S.250, 254(1)]

Institute of Nephrourology v. DCIT (E) (2025) 236 TTJ 623 (Bang)(Trib)