Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


PCIT v. Sony India Pvt. Ltd [2024] 167 taxmann.com 549 ( /(2025) 477 ITR 576 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Entertainment business- Royalty Payment-Transfer Pricing Officer cannot examine commercial expediency. Royalty payable under licence agreement. No question of law arose regarding disallowance on account of royalty paid by assessee to associated enterprises. Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 9(1)(vi), 260A]

PCIT v. Phoenix Comtrade Pvt. Ltd [2024] 162 taxmann.com 99 ( /(2025) 477 ITR 498 (Bom)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Arm’s length price-No substantial question of law.[S. 260A]

Axis Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 477 ITR 297/ 304 Taxman 538 (Guj)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Principle of natural justice-Notice and grant of approval by Principal Commissioner quashed and set aside-Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for considering matter afresh after hearing assessee and thereafter to pass speaking order.[S.92CA(1), 92CA(2), 92CA(3), Art. 226]

Pankaj Gupta v. PCIT (2025) 477 ITR 387/174 taxmann.com 747 (Orissa)(HC) Editorial : SLP rejected, Pankaj Gupta v. PCIT ( 2025] 305 Taxman 407 / 477 ITR 390 (SC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Post-demonetisation deposit of old currency notes-Cash book balance insufficient to explain deposit – Failure to explain the source – Addition was affirmed.[S. 260A]

Pankaj Gupta v. PCIT (2025) 477 ITR 390/305 Taxman 407 (SC) Editorial : Pankaj Gupta v. PCIT (2025) 477 ITR 387/174 taxmann.com 747 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Denominations – Details not maintained – Nature of source of cash deposit was not explained satisfactorily – SLP of assessee dismissed. [Art. 136]

CIT v. Naresh K. Trehan. (2025) 305 Taxman 547/ 477 ITR 589 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Accepted cost of acquisition – Difference between intrinsic value of shares and amount paid by assessee cannot be taxed as perquisites – Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed. [S. 2(24)(iv), 260A]

SK. Jaynal Abddin v.CIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 640 / (2025) 477 ITR 95 (Cal)(HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Payments to agents cannot be disallowed – Order of Tribunal set aside. [ITR, 1962 R. 6DD, Indian Contract Act, 1872, S. 182.]

Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 477 ITR 611/176 taxmann.com 104 (Bom)(HC) CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2025) 477 ITR 611/176 taxmann.com 104 (Bom)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Foreign exchange rates Expenses incurred on account of foreign exchange fluctuation and interest thereon in respect of foreign currency loans-Allowable business expenditure-Order of Tribunal set aside-Travelling expenses-Expenses incurred towards foreign tour of executives accompanied by their spouses-Major portion of claim allowed by Commissioner (Appeals)-Miniscule amount being involved order of Tribunal, affirmed.

PCIT v. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 549 / (2025) 477 ITR 576 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provision for warranty – Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is affirmed.

State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick (Gauhati) ( HC) (GAHC010232752022 ) www.itatonline .org . Editorial : SLP of petitioner dismissed , State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick &Ors( SLP (C ) No .30677 of 2024 dt .3-1 -2025 ( SC)

Constitution of India .
Art. 226: Cyber fraud – Unauthorized electronic banking transactions – Zero liability of customer (RBI Circular) – Bank’s duty of prompt action – Fraudulent siphoning of ₹94,204.80 on downloading app at behest of fraudster impersonating brand customer-care – Customer informed bank within one working day – No proof of customer sharing OTP/MPIN – Failure of Bank to lodge complaint, initiate charge-back or take timely steps – Third-party breach admitted by merchant – Negligence of customer not established – Liability of bank to refund entire amount- RBI Circular dated 06-07-2017, clauses , 7(1) 8, 9&10 ]