Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


DCIT v. M. Mahadevan ( Chennai )( Trib) www.itatonline.org.

S. 56: Income from other sources – Long term capital loss -Share transfer agreement – Shares sold at an undervalued price – Related party transaction – AO claimed that the transaction was structured to avoid tax – Shares valued at upwards of Rs 19000 , per share were sold for Rs 100 per share – Valuation was not in accordance with Rule 11UA – Matter remanded back to AO for recalculating capital gains. [ S. 45 ,56(2)(vii)(b), 56(2)(x), R.11UA(1)(c)(v) ]

ACIT v. JM Financial Properties and Holdings Ltd ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org.

S.36(1)(iii): Interest on borrowed capital –Interest on ICDs used for giving interest-free security deposit for getting the premises on leave and license – Business purpose – Interest is allowed as deduction. [ S. 37(1)]

DCIT v. M. Mahadevan ( Chennai )( Trib) www.itatonline.org.

S. 6(1) : Residence in India – Individual -Stayed more than 60 days in each year – More than 365 days in india for a period or periods amounting to all to 365 days or more -More than 183 days for AY. 2013 -14 & 2014-15 – Control and management office is located in Chennai , India – Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) data and travelling on a social/tourist visa – Business not the purpose of the travel interest – Resident – Global income taxable and credit available to assessee- Credit for Foreign taxes paid is directed to be allowed , subject to verification- DTAA -India -UAE [ S. 6(1)(a), 6(1)( c), 6(4) , 90, 91, 132 , Art. 4 ]

Mohammed Fakhre Alam Shaikh v. The Assessing Officer. ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Compensation – Surrender of premises – Allocated flat as compensation to remove illegal occupant – The value of flat received by the assessee as compensation for removing nuisance shall constitute capital receipt – Not taxable. [ S. 2(24),54F, 56(2)(vii)( b )]

Paramjit Singh v. Ms Gagan Singh @ Mannu (2025) 302 Taxman 65 (Delhi)(HC)

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 4 : Prohibition of right to recover property held benami-Fiduciary capacity-Joint ownership suit property-known sources-Absence of documents evidencing existence of a fiduciary relationship and existence of corpus of funds made available by plaintiff from his/her known sources-Claim of ownership is barred. [S. 2(9)(A)(ii)]

Sanjay Bhandari v. ITO (2025) 302 Taxman 122 (Delhi) (HC)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

S. 51:Pushishment for wilful attempt to evade tax-Return of income-Prosecution under section 51 cannot be dependent on completion of assessment, as offence, if proved, stands completed as soon as conditions as required under section 51(3) are fulfilled, irrespective of return of income-Writ petition to quash the proceeding is dismissed. [S.2(12), 10(1), 48, 51(3), ITACT, 1961, S. 6(6), 131(IA),132, Art. 226]

ACIT v. Ericsson India (P.) Ltd (2024) 302 Taxman 13 (SC) Editorial : Ericsson India (P.) Ltd v. Addl.CIT (2018) 98 taxman.com 395/ (2019) 411 ITR 333(Delhi)(HC)

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Prior to amendment in section 271G by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. from 1-10-2014, TPO had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271G for failure to furnish documents as required by section 92D(3)-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S.92D(3), Art.136]

CIT (TDS) v. Turner General Entertainment Networks India (P.) Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 187 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Action for imposition of penalty is initiated-Penalty proceedings were initiated on receipt of reference on 25-9-2014 and not on issuance of show cause notice on 4-8-2015-Order of penalty passed by Joint Commissioner (TDS) is barred by limitation. [S. 44AD, 260A]

CIT (LTU) v. State Bank of India (2025) 302 Taxman 365 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. State Bank of India (2024) 169 taxmann.com 304 (Karn)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the relevant portion of clause in penalty notice-Order of High Curt deleting the penalty is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 274, Art. 136]

Chavakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 302 Taxman 305 (Ker)(HC)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Delay in obtaining audit reports from statutory auditors under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules-Reasonable cause-Penalty order is quashed.[S.44AB, 273B]