Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2025) 476 ITR 80 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Installation of cell site towers-Lease agreement-Accounting Standard 29-Entitle to depreciation.[S. 260A]

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd 2024] 165 taxmann.com 653 / (2025) 476 ITR 769 (Bom)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-
Deduction of tax at source-Transactions entered into pertaining to assessment years prior to introduction of Explanation in section 9(1)(vi)-Explanation 4 introduced in section 9(1)(iv) by Finance Act, 20121 cannot have retrospective effect and payment not royalty liable to deduction of tax-Appeal of revenue was dismissed. [S. 9(1)(vi), Expln. 4, 37, 40(a)(ia), 195(2).

CIT (IT) v. Sales Force.Com Singapore Pte. Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 8 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Salesforce.com Singapore Pte. Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 257 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Non-resident-Copy right-Subscription fees-SLP of revenue dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art. 12(4)(b). Art. 136]]

PCIT v. Greenply Industries Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 347 /304 Taxman 192 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Excise duty exemption Purpose test formulated by Supreme Court Excise duty exemption granted for purpose of industrialisation and generation of employment in States-Excise duty exemption capital receipt-Book profit-Excise duty exemption availed being in nature of capital receipt and not chargeable to tax under normal provisions cannot be added in book profit. [S.115JB]

PCIT v. Ritum Jain. (2025) 476 ITR 69 (Cal)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Income or capital-Sales tax incentive received from State Government under West Bengal Industrial Promotion Scheme-Capital receipt-Appellate Tribunal-Power-The Tribunal has the power to entertain a claim of deduction not claimed before the Assessing Officer by filing revised return. [S. 139,254(1)]

CIT v. Meera Goyal (2025) 476 ITR 152 (SC) Editorial : Order of High Court affirmed, CIT v. Meera Goyal (2013] 214 Taxman 298 / (2014) 360 ITR 346/267 CTR 265 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Forfeiture of earnest money arising out of agreement to sale a property is not liable to tax–Income from other sources-Capital receipt-Advance received under agreement to sell-Forfeited-Receipt would go to reduce cost of acquisition of asset-Cannot be assessed as income from other sources-Appeal of revenue dismissed. [S. 51, 56(2)(vi), Art. 136]

Deepak Jain v. ACIT ( Delhi)(Trib) www . itatonline ,org

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act , 2015 .

S. 10(3) :Assessment – Charge of tax Undisclosed foreign asset – Asset ceased before 1.7.2015 – Not taxable – Penalty – Non-disclosure of asset – Ceased before AY 2012–13 -Penalty not leviable. – Doctrine of election/approbate and reprobate- Once proceedings under the IT Act are consciously chosen, the Revenue cannot subsequently invoke BMA. [ S. 2(11), 3(1) , 41, 43 ,BMA Valuation Rule, 3, Income tax Act , 1961 , S. 90, 131(IA), 132, 132(4) , 132(4A) , 292C ]

ACIT v. Eagle Films (Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org .

S. 45 : Capital Gains – Sale of Film Rights – Transfer of bundle of rights in 31 cinematographic films held to be transfer of capital assets – Consideration received taxable as capital gains and not as business income. [ S.2(11)(B), 2(14) 28(i), 28(va) 55(2)(a) ]

Fresh Pet Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT, [2024] 167 taxmann.com 223 / (2025) 475 ITR 269 (Delhi HC).

Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020

S. 3: Dispute resolution-Fundamental aim to settle matters and issues that existed on the relevant date; not to create liability on issues on which parties were already ad idem-Failure to make requisite disclosures does not defeat reliefs granted in assessment-Designated authority may rectify apparent mistakes in Form 3-Beneficial statutes to be interpreted liberally. [S. 4, 5, Form No. 3; Art. 226]

Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 475 ITR 115 / 171 taxmann.com 472 (Bom)(HC) Editorial: Refer Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 341 / 461 ITR 483 / 336 CTR 688 (Bom)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Capital gains-Evasion of tax-Construction business-Mere filing of capital account does not amount to full and proper disclosure-Order of Tribunal affirming the penalty was affirmed. [S. 147, 260A, Expln. 1, 271(1)(c)]