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

Sita Ram Pansari, Transport Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ramgarh

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 123/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.123-126/Ran/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Ayrs :2013-14, 2014-2015, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sita Ram Pansari, Vs. Ito Ramgarh Transport Nagar, Main Road, Kuju, Jharkhand-825316 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Ajppp 3351 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akash Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : All The Above Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, All Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, Against Which The Assessee Preferred Appeals Before The Tribunal. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common Except The Figures & Assessment Years In Question, Therefore, All The Four Appeals Are Heard Together & Decided By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.123/Ran/2025 For A.Y.2013-2014. 4. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Or Profession Of Coal Trading Under E-Auction

For Appellant: Shri Akash Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ITO Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Suhasit Star Trading Private Limited, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 4771/MUM/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankarsuhasit Star Trading Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Ltd. बनाम 15(3)(4), Room No. 15B, 01, Laura Building No. 13/21, Ground Floor, Aayakar 1St Dhobi Talao Lane, Mumbai– Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400002, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapcs3728K Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Income Tax Officer, Ward – V/S. Suhasit Star Trading Pvt. 15(3)(4), Room No. 456, 4Th बनाम Ltd. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 312, Sharda M.K. Road, Mumbai – Chambers No. 1, Keshavji N, 400020, Maharashtra Bhat Bazar, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai–400009, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapcs3728K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Mangla,Ar (Virtually Appear) Respondent By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Above Captioned Appeal In Ita 4623/Mum/2023 Is Preferred By The Assessee & Ita 4771/Mum/2023 Is Cross Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla,AR (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68