Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.195

Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 195 (T ax on income referred to in sections 102 to 106) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 195 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 115BBE is CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192), cited in 2,664 of the 8,662 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115BBE

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
367 ITR 466 · 2014 · Supreme Court
1,558
citing judgments

Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court
1,061
citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.
454 ITR 312 · 2023 · High Court
580
citing judgments

Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for assessment orders in search cases. While elaborate reasons for approval are not required, the approving authority must provide some indication that it has examined the draft orders and found them to meet the requirements of law.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT
99 ITR 375 · 1975 · High Court
543
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

Judgments on Section 115BBE

Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, both appeals of the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 874 & 875/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 ] Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, The Income-Tax Officer, "Radha Swami", 3, Chandan Ward-1(1)(1), Aayakar Vs. Park, Raiya Road, Rajkot, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Gujarat-360007 Road, Rajkot, Gujarat -360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqhpm2444F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. Since The Issue Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Therefore These Two Appeals Are Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Facts As Well

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, both appeals of the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 874 & 875/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 ] Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, The Income-Tax Officer, "Radha Swami", 3, Chandan Ward-1(1)(1), Aayakar Vs. Park, Raiya Road, Rajkot, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Gujarat-360007 Road, Rajkot, Gujarat -360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqhpm2444F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. Since The Issue Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Therefore These Two Appeals Are Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Facts As Well

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Morbi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 197/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Venish Vinodray Lalani, The Income-Tax Officer, Ward- Prop. Of Nandini Sarees Ghar, 1, Aayakar Vibhag, J. K. Vs. 4, Rup Complex, University Chamber, Lalpar, National Road, Opp. Ramraj Travels, Highway, Morbi – 363642, Rajkot – 360005, Gujarat Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aflpl9689Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section-250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 30.12.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 11.03.2024. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Has Erred In Law & Facts In Dismissing The Grounds Raised In Appeal Venish Vinodray Lalani

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 658 & 485/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2022-23 ] Nitinbhai Nanlal Badani, Cit (Appeals), National Vs. Nirav, Gandhi Gram Main Road, Faceless Appeal Centre, Raiya Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005 Delhi, New Delhi 110001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb0250C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2022-23, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 Of The Act. 2. Since, The Issue Involved In Both These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical Therefore These Two Appeals Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144B(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 485/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 658 & 485/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2022-23 ] Nitinbhai Nanlal Badani, Cit (Appeals), National Vs. Nirav, Gandhi Gram Main Road, Faceless Appeal Centre, Raiya Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005 Delhi, New Delhi 110001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb0250C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2022-23, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 Of The Act. 2. Since, The Issue Involved In Both These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical Therefore These Two Appeals Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144B(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Tapas Ram Misravikas Ashokkumar Masand, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Income Tax, Nr. Manav Mandir, Circle 3(1)(1), Drive-In Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380052. [Pan : Acbpa3190 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Ms Ridhi Masani, Ca On Behalf Of Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2026 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 16.07.2026 Is Bad In Law, Contrary To The Facts On Record, Contrary To The Settled Judicial Precedents & Is Passed Without Properly Appreciating The Evidence & Submissions Placed Before Him & Therefore Requires To Be Set Aside. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 34,40,123/-Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Act, When The Very

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68Section 69A