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

Rupesh Bishnoi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Meerut

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

ITA 2483/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2483/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Rupesh Bishnoi, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv., Ward-2(2), F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Meerut Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afupb5240G Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.02.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Meerut. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id Cit-A Erred In Sustaining The Action Of Id Ao In Applying Section 115Bbe Which Is Out Rightly Bad In Law. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id Cit-A Erred In Not Allowing Rectification Application Filed U/S 154 By Assessee Which Was Wrongfully Rejected By Ld. Ao. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id Cit-A Erred In Not Appreciating Surrender Of Exempt Ltcg Income U/S 10(38) Shall Be Subject Matter Of Section 112 Only & Cannot Be Lumped In Unexplained Income Provisions Which Are Not Applicable To Capital Gains Transaction. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Add/Alter Any/All Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 112Section 115BSection 154

Sanjeev Goel (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 45(3), Kolkata

ITA 354/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjeev Goel (Huf)…...….…………………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 13, Ashutosh Shastri Road Beliaghata Kolkata – 700 010 [Pan : Aaths 1673 L] Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(3), Kolkata………………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 2Nd, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 24Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/12/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Huf & Filed Its Return Of Income On 26/07/2014, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,13,619/-. The Assessee Claimed Exemption Of Capital Gains On Gross Sale Consideration Of Rs.30,59,000/- From Sale Of Shares Of M/S. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Case Of The Assessee Is That It Purchased 80,000 Shares Of M/S. Careful Projects Advisory Ltd. For A Sum Of Rs.80,000/- @ Re.1/- Per Share. M/S. Careful Projects Advisory Ltd., Was Merged With M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. Thereafter These Shares Of M/S. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. Was Sold Through Stock Exchange, As These Were Listed Shares. The Assessing Officer Treated The Receipt Of Sale Consideration On These Shares As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 115Bbe Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority Without Success.

Section 115BSection 250