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

Prakash Hiralal Sejpal, Surendranagar vs. Ward-1 Surendranagar, Surendranagar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 942/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jul 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 941 & 942/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 ] Prakash Hiralal Sejpal, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, 40 Vishwakunj Society Ratanpar, Surendranagar, Vs. Ratanpar, Surendra Nagar, Surendranagar Joravarnagar S.O 363020, Gujarat-363020 (Gujarat - India) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aerps0356Q (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/07/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.10.2025 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 ‘Assessing Officer’) U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Shri Prakash Hiralal Sejpal, Surendranagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Surendranagar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 941/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 941 & 942/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 ] Prakash Hiralal Sejpal, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, 40 Vishwakunj Society Ratanpar, Surendranagar, Vs. Ratanpar, Surendra Nagar, Surendranagar Joravarnagar S.O 363020, Gujarat-363020 (Gujarat - India) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aerps0356Q (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/07/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.10.2025 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 ‘Assessing Officer’) U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Raman Kant, Ludhiana vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 989/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jul 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.989/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Raman Kant Pr. Cit – 1 Prop. Laxmi Timber Traders Ludhiana बनाम/ Vs. Radha Swami Road Near Dhuri Railway Line Ludhiana, Punjab – 141002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bgupk-2406-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pushkal Soni (Ca) &Sh. Gulshan Wadhwa – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 06-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Vide Impugned Order Dated 25-02-2026 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Pushkal Soni (CA) &Sh. GulshanFor Respondent: Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C