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

S 224 Kattanachampatty Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Namakkal vs. ITO, Namakkal

ITA 2323/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2323/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 S 244 Kattanachampatty Primary V. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op. Credit Society, Ward –2 No.67C/3 Vallalar Kovil Backside, Namakkal. Kattukottai, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Ablas8536L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 06.01.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2017-18. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The Cit (A) / Nfac In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine Is Contrary To Law, Erroneous & Unsustainable On The Facts Of Case. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) / Nfac Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 184 Days In Filing The Appeal, Although The Assessee Had Explained In The Petition The Reason For The Delay.

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 139Section 148Section 69ASection 80P

Gnanavelu Thilak, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with the above observations and directions

ITA 69/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 69/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Gnanavelu Thilak, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.97, Kodambakkam High Road, Non-Corporate Ward-3(5), Nungambakkam, Nungambakkam S.O, Chennai. Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aowpt4958E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. S. Sridhar(Erode), Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2018-19. Grounds Of Appeal 1) The Impugned Order Is Unjust, Unreasonable & Bad In Law. 2) The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Considering The Submissions In Proper Perspective. 3) The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Considering The Material Fact That When The Books Of Account, Trade Results, Etc., Are Not Rejected, Thereby Erred In Sustaining The Addition Made Under Section.68. Page 1 Of 6 Gnanavelu Thilak 4) Without Prejudice To The Above, Levy Of Tax At 60 Percent Under Sec. 115Bbe, When The Only Source Of The Appellant Is From Business, Is Not Legally Tenable.

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar(Erode), AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 68