Judgements of Note

1. No Penalty u/s.43 of BMA where no Malafide Intention or Ulterior Motive In a case where the assessee offered all details and explanations with documentary evidence relating to fixed assets, though the assessee did not disclose the same in Schedule FA in the Income Tax Return, penalty u/s.43 of the Black Money Act was held not leviable. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Randhir Singh v DDIT(Inv) 2025 (4) TMI 385 – ITAT Mumbai while holding so went into the objects of the Black Money Act which was to deal with undisclosed foreign income and assets and held that penalty should not be levied for punishing a technical / venial / bonafide breach of statutory obligations. The Tribunal for this purpose relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v State of Orissa 1969 (8) TMI 31 – SC. 
2. Leasehold Property Transfers – Provisions of section 50C applicable The Bombay High Court in Vidarbha Veneere Industries Ltd. v ITO TS-363-HC-2025 (BOM) has held that the consideration accrued or received as a result of transfer of capital assets being land or building or both, will include even land held under leasehold right. In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court held that the expression “held by an assessee” does not restrict the manner in which land / building is held. The High Court in this case rejected reliance placed by the assessee on a decision in Atul G. Puranik v ITO (2011) 11 taxmann.com 92 (Mum) as it does not consider the import of Section 2(14)(a) in conjunction with section 50C of the Act. 
3. Revision can be made u/s.263 on issues not disputed in appeal The Raipur Bench of the Tribunal in Vijay Kumar Patel v PCIT [2025] 122 ITR (Trib) 436 (Raipur) has held that a revision can be made u/s.263 of the Act even where an appeal is filed before the CIT(A) in cases where the revision pertains to issues not disputed in appeal. It has been held in the following cases that where an issue is pending in appeal, such issues cannot be the subject matter of revision u/s.263: CIT v Vam Resorts & Hotels (P) Ltd [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All), Renuka Philip v ITO [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Mad) , Golden Vats Pvt Ltd v ACIT 2024 SCC Online ITAT 2236 – Chennai ITAT , Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi v ACIT in ITA Nos.340 & 341 / Chny / 2022 , R.M.Tradeline Pvt Ltd v PCIT in ITA No.68 / Rajkot / 2022 In the context of revision u/s.264 however it must be noted that the Supreme Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v CIT 2000 (5) SCC 365 has held that filing of appeal would act as a complete bar on exercise of revisionary powers u/s.264. The Madras High Court in CIT v D.Lakshminarayanapathi [2001] 250 ITR 187 (Mad) has held that filing of a revision application u/s.264 would not be a bar on filing an appeal thereafter before the Appellate Authority.