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

Mohd. Akmal, Mau vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is held to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 161/VNS/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Aug 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Mohd Akmal, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Jummana Pura, Kopaganj, Mau- Centre (Nfac), Delhi 225305 Pan: Amupa0225D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. Sudipta Paul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 17.06.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 13.02.2025. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “(1) Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Solely For Non-Prosecution, Without Adjudicating On Merits Or Considering The Detailed Grounds & Facts Already On Record & Without Allowing Effective Opportunity Of Hearing, Contrary To The Principles Of Natural Justice. (2) In Any Case, It Is A Law Well Settled That Any Ex-Parte Order Passed Without Deciding The Merits Of The Objections Raised & Evidence Already On Record, Is Invalid & Liable To Be Quashed. (3) Proceedings Under Section 147 Have Neither Been Validly Initiated Nor Concluded In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law, Which Has The Effect Of Rendering The Assessment Order Dated 13.02.2025 As A Whole, Vitiated.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sudipta Paul, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Ghazipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(5), Ghazipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/VNS/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Aug 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2018-19 Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, 00, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tilak Nagar Colony, Ghazipur, 3(5), Ghazipur 233001 Pan: Aufpp9026Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Tiwari, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 30.07.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide His Order Dated 30.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.That The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On The Fact & In The Law. 2. That On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred Both In Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 10082100/- As Unexplained Income Of The Appellant, Made By The Assessing Officer Only On The Basis Of Conjectures & Surmises. Hence, The Appellate Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside For Fresh Consideration. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Ignoring The Income Of The Appellant From His Business Income.

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmendra Tiwari, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147

Shri Vasant Manji Thacker, Bhuj vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 767/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Shri Vasant Manji Thacker Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), 15/16 Halaji Bunglow, College Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Road Opposite Mandvi, Octroi, Ashram Road Navrangpura, Bhuj, Gujrat- 370001 Ahmedabad Gujrat 380009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Abcpt4282E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2026 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee, Has Called Into Question Correctness Of Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17, On The Following Grounds: “1. That, The Ld. Pcit Has Wrongly Invoked Provisions Of Section 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Wrongly Held That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. The Ld. Pcit Has Wrongly Passed Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Shri Vasant Manji Thacker

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263