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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, Jhansi

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 24/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit - Central Circle Rajendra Kumar Aggarwal Room No. 104, Ist Floor 219, Daru Bhondela, Jhansi बनाम/ Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Sanjay Place 284002. Agra-282002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abtpa-1493-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur [Cit(A)] Dated 14-11-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Dcit, Central Circle (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.810 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order.

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

ACIT., Central Circle, Aligarh vs. M/S Radharani Jewellers Ltd, Delhi

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 23/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Central Circle M/S Radharani Jewellers Limited बनाम/ 5882/4, 2Nd Floor, Block No.4, Aaykar Bhawan, Sanjay Place Vs. Agra - 282002. Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecr-3358-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur Dated 23-12-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Acit, Central Circle, Agra (Ao) U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31-12-2019. The Sole Issue In The Appeal Is Addition Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period. 2. The Ld. Cit-Dr Advanced Arguments & Supported The Findings Of Ld. Ao Whereas Ld. Ar Also Advanced Arguments & Supported The Findings Of Ld. Cit(A) In The Impugned Order. Having Heard Rival

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

Bipin Babu Agrawal, Mathura vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Agra

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 149/AGR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.149/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Bipin Babu Agarwal Dcit / Acit बनाम/ 16, Kamla Vihar Colony Central Circle Vs. Masani, Mathura 281 001 Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpa-0864-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. M. Agrawal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [Cit(A)] Dated 28-06-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-09-2021. Having Heard Vehement Arguments Of Both The Sides & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. During The Year, The Assessee Being Resident Individual Carried Out Business Activities In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Parshant Silver Handicrafts. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized Pursuant To Search Action On R.S. Bullion & Jewellers Group Of Cases At Mathura

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Agrawal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)

ACIT 32 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Asha P Kedia, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the Assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3672/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit 32 1 Ms. Asha P Kedia 252, Kautilya Bhavan, 602, Vishwananak Bldg, Bkc, Bandra East, Vs. Ict Link Rd, Maharashtra - 400051. Andheri East, Maharashtra - 400099. Pan: Aiqpk0746F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.181/M/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3672/M/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Asha P Kedia Assistant Commissioner Plot No. 18, Sagar Jyoti, Of Income Tax-32 (1) 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Vs. 252, Kautilya Bhavan, Vile Parle (West), Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400056. 400020. Pan: Aiqpk0746F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17 . 03 .2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 . 03 .2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal By The Revenue Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 21.05.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. Co. No. 181/Mum/2024 Ms. Asha P Kedia 2. Considering The Delay Of 4 Days In Filing Of The Co By The Assessee Is Miniscule, Bonafide & Unintentional As Claimed By The Assessee Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 250Section 68

Vallabhbhai Jadavbhai Kalsariya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1321/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1321/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Vallabhbhai Jadavbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ Kalsariya 3(3)(5), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. 120, Kamal Park Society, L..H. Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Road, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Civil Hospital, Surat 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bijpk 0301 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) Dated 30.10.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 144 Of The Act Dated 05.12.2019. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Best Judgment Assessment U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A