Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Societe de Participations Financiers v. ACIT (2025) 303 Taxman 586 / 474 ITR 199 (SC) Editorial: Societe de Participations Financiers v. ACIT (2024) 297 Taxman 75 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 90: Double taxation relief – SLP dismissed against High Court order holding that a notification under section 90(1) is mandatory to give effect to a DTAA, or any protocol altering its terms, which would have the effect of changing existing provisions of law – OECD Model Convention – Art. 24 [Art. 136]

PCIT (IT) v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2025) 303 Taxman 212 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Permanent Establishment – Service PE – Seconded employees in India – Objective of facilitating activities of Indian subsidiary – Employees would not meet qualifying benchmarks of a PE – Order of Tribunal deleting the addition affirmed – DTAA – India–South Korea [S. 260A, Art. 5]

J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum)( Trib ) www.itatonline.org . Editorial : The Tribunal erroneously observed that the Judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT( 2024)162 taxmann.com 225/ 464 ITR 430 ( Bom)( HC) is stayed by the Honourable Supreme Court . Refer , Dada Pharma LLP v. Dy.CIT ( Mad)( HC) www.itatonline .org , Gaishen Enterprise LLP v. ACIT ( Bom)( HC ) www.itatonline .org . Chennai ITAT issues Circular requesting the Bar and Departmental Representatives to identify appeals covered by Madras HC ruling in TVS credit Services Ltd v. DCIT , following Bombay High Court Judgement in Haxaware for consolidating hearing , www.itatonline .org .

S.151A : Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment – Reassessment issued by Jurisdictional AO instead of FAO – Order is held to be valid on the presumption that the operation of Jurisdictional High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT( 2024) 464 ITR 430 ( Bom)( HC) is stayed by the Honourable Supreme Court . [ S. 148 , 151 ,Art. 136 ]

J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org .

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice –Shall be signed -Validity of reassessment – As per the CBDT Notification dated 31.03.2021, reassessment proceedings initiated prior to 01.04.2021 were to be governed under the old regime, and all functions were to be performed by the Jurisdictional AO- Sanction and jurisdiction is bad – Order of reassessment is quashed Unsigned sanction – Order is quashed and set aside . [ S. 120, 147, 148 ,149, 282A(1) R.127A(1) ]

J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline.org .

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure – Alleged bogus purchases – Estimate of 12% of alleged bogus expenses are affirmed – Pr. CIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd ( 2025) 474 ITR 175 / 172 Taxman.com 283 (Bom)( HC) distinguished . [ S. 37(1))

J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum)(Trib)

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure – Alleged out of books Murrum expenses – Where cash expenditure relates to business operations and its incurrence is not disputed, addition under section 69C cannot be made for the entire amount- Estimation of profit element is justified. Addition restricted to 5% of such expenses. [ S. 132 ]

J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Alleged investment of unaccounted cash receipts in immoveable properties – The Tribunal held that without tangible evidence of investment, addition under section 69A on account of alleged purchase of immovable property is not justified. Addition deleted .

J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum) ( Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Alleged unaccounted cash sales from Scrap and Piling business- Addition of gross receipts is not justified- Applying an average profit rate of 8.56% on such cash receipts is held to be reasonable – Order of CIT( A) is affirmed . [S.115BBE ]

J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum) ( Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Salary paid to staff/ spouse and professional fees – Disallowance is restricted to 30% .[ S. 40(a)(ia),143(3) ]

Western Arch Developers v. Pr. CIT (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline .org .

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes- Profits and gains from housing projects – Condonation of delay – Genuine hardship- Delay in filing of return of income – Genuine hardship – Claim for deduction under section 80IBA – Delay of 45 days due to illness of managing partner – Rejection not justified. [S. 80IBA , 119(2(b), 139, Art. 226 ]