Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dy. CIT v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (2025) 476 ITR 659 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 115JB : Company-Book profit–Electricity generation and distribution-Provisions of section 115JB inapplicable to assessee in assessment year 2008-2009 prior to amendment by Finance Act, 2012.[S. 260A]

PCIT v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (2025) 476 ITR 639 /171 taxmann.com 59 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 115JB : Company-Book profit-Provision for bad and doubtful debts-Electricity company-Tribunal deleting additions made to enhance book profit justified.[S. 260A, Companies Act, 1956, S. 210, 211., Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.]

American Express Banking Corporation (India Branch) v. ADIT (2025) 476 ITR 752/174 taxmann.com 595 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Concurrent findings of appellate authorities that assessee had received intra-group services-Matter remanded by Tribunal to Transfer Pricing Officer to consider afresh from perspective of findings Held, no infirmity in order of Tribunal remanding matter for fresh consideration. [S.92CA(3) 254(1), 260A.]

CIT v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 476 ITR 404 / 171 taxmann.com 536 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Reimbursement of expatriate employees salaries-Net margin method-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 37(1), 92C, 92CA, R.10A(d), 260A]

ACIT v. Cummins India Ltd.(2025) 476 ITR 158 /304 Taxman 604 (SC) Editorial : Cummins India Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 294 Taxman 619/ 335 CTR 387 / (2024) 470 ITR 184 (Bom)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Royalty-Most appropriate method-SLP of revenue dismissed. [Art. 136]

Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2025) 476 ITR 582 / 172 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 80IC : Special category States-Industrial undertaking-Approval of local or State authority-Section 80-IC(2)(b)(ii) does not require such agreement or approval-Requirement under rule 18BBB(4) and form 10CCB cannot be read as mandatory where parent provision does not stipulate it-The issue not constituted grounds of appeal-Tribunal erred in examining the issue not constituted grounds of appeal-Order of Tribunal was set aside. [S. 80IC)2)(b)(ii), 80IA(4),254(1), 260A, R.188BBB]

Shital Fibers Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 476 ITR 309/174 taxmann.com 807 (Three Judges) (SC) Editorial : Associated Capsules Pvt Ltd v.Dy.CIT (2011) 332 ITR 42 (Bom)(HC), approved. ACG Associated Capsules P. Ltd v.CIT(343 ITR 89 (SC), Difference of opinion between two judges, ACIT v. Micro Labs Ltd (2016) 380 ITR 1 (SC), ACIT v. Rogini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15 (Chennai)(SB)(Trib)

S.80IA: Industrial undertakings-Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development-Does not restrict computation of gross total income-Restricts deduction under any other provision under heading C to extent of deduction claimed under section 80IA-The aggregate deduction under section 80IA and other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A do not exceed 100 per cent. of the profits of the business of the assessee, is logical and correct. [S. 4(1), 80AB, 80B(5), 80HHC, 80IA(9), Chap. VI-A.]

PCIT v. Adinath Investment and Training Co. (2025) 476 ITR 35 (P & H) (HC)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses-Investment business-Capital loss-Notional loss-Fall in value of equity shares-Sale of non-convertible debentures-Order of Tribunal allowing loss as carry forward loss not erroneous. [S 10(2A), 260A]

PCIT v. Shree Ganesh Developers (2025) 476 ITR 568 /172 taxmann.com 542 (HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Real estate business-Order of Tribunal was affirmed-Order of Tribunal was reversed in so far as the purchases from the two parties were concerned-However, the total additions should not exceed the total purchases from them.[S. 68, 133(6), 260A]

CIT v. Jaya Publications (2025) 476 ITR 545 /174 taxmann.com 104 (Mad)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Purchase of newsprint-Ad hoc disallowance of 15 per cent. reduced to 5 per cent. by Tribunal-Assessee accepting 5 per cent. Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.37(1), 56, 131, 153(3), 246A, 260A]