Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


DCIT v. Consulting Engineering Services (India) P. Ltd. (2025) 132 ITR 206 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Jurisdictional validity of assessment order in question due to absence of transfer order under section 127-Commissioner (Appeals) passing order without adjudicating jurisdictional issue despite pending High Court directions-Matter restored to file of Commissioner (Appeals). [S. 127, 143(3), 144B]

ITO v. Syamantaka IFMR Capital 2017 (2025) 132 ITR 61(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 194LBC : Deduction of tax at source-Payments to investors in securitisation trust-Excess interest spread paid to originator by assessee, a securitisation trust-Originator not an “investor”-Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 115TCA, 201(1)]

Vivriti Cibus 013 2017 v. ITO (2025) 132 ITR 29(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 194LBC : Deduction of tax at source-Income in respect of investment in securitisation trust-Definitions of “investor” and “securitised debt instrument”-Originator not holding any pass-through certificates of securitisation trust-Where minimum retention requirement commitment is met via other permissible alternative, originator does not hold instrument in securitisation trust and cannot be reckoned as investor-Assessee not “assessee-in-default”. [S. 115TCA, 201(1), 201(1A)]

Sachin Vilas Chaugule v. CIT (2025) 132 ITR 153 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Cash found at assessee’s residence claimed to belong to third party (H group)-H group also claiming the sum and seeking advance tax credit thereof-Same amount cannot be taxed twice-Matter remanded for verification-Income disclosed before Settlement Commission spread year-wise-Petition rejected-Same income taxed again for assessment year 2014-15-Double taxation-Matter remanded for de novo assessment. [S. 132, 132(4), 245D(1)]

DCIT v. DRS Logistics P. Ltd. (2025) 132 ITR 67(Hyd)(Trib.)

S. 147: Reassessment-Condition precedent-Tangible material to reopen assessment-Assessing Officer seeking to verify computation of total income-No new material to show escapement of income-Reassessment not sustainable. [S. 143(3), 148]

Rolls Royce India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 1 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Assessment-Limitation-Assessing Officer required to complete assessment within one month from the end of the month in which directions of Dispute Resolution Panel received-Directions of Panel dated 21-9-2021-Final order passed on 18-11-2021, after due date of 31-10-2021-Time-barred-Final assessment order void ab initio. [S. 92CA(3), 92CA(5), 144C(5), 144C(13)]

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd. (formerly known as Cadbury Ltd.) v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 83 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Advertising, marketing and promotion expenses-No agreement with associated enterprise to share/reimburse expenses-Not an international transaction-Addition not justified.-Royalty for trademark separate from royalty for technology-Cannot be clubbed-Adjustment on royalty for technology deleted-Arms length price-To be determined only by one of five prescribed methods-Ad hoc estimation of salary and man-hours not permissible-Adjustment deleted-Income-Disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income-Sufficient own funds available-No disallowance warranted-Direct/indirect expenses remitted for verification-Business loss-Foreign exchange loss on forward contracts terminated by bank on/after maturity, not prematurely cancelled by assessee-Integral to export of goods-Allowable as business loss-Special deduction-Allocation of operating and establishment expenses on ratio of unit’s revenue to total revenue-Method consistently accepted in earlier years-Deduction allowable-Interest-No delay in filing return-No interest under section 234A-Interest under section 234C levied on assessed income instead of returned income-Matter remitted for recomputation. [S. 14A, R. 8D, 28(i),80IC, 234A, 234C]

Lalit R Jagawat HUF v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 192 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits –Demonetisation-Cash deposits in bank during demonetisation period-Explanation that deposits were from recorded cash sales-Stocks existing on date of sale, no backdating-Complete stock tally maintained, books audited, no deviation in gross profit ratio, parties identified, proper invoices and VAT returns filed-No evidence of bogus sales-Cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income. [S. 115BBE]

National Contracting Co. (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 185 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 43B : Deduction only on actual payment-Rectification of mistakes-Gratuity amount incorrectly claimed under wrong schedule in return-Not reflected in tax audit report-Centralised Processing Centre disallowing claim under section 143(1)-Assessee filing revised tax audit report-Genuine claim could not be denied-CBDT Circular-Income of assessee should not be over-assessed-Legitimate deduction not to be denied merely because of a mistake made by assessee. [S. 143(1), 154]

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 134 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 43B : Deduction only on actual payment-Unpaid interest on loan from World Bank-Section 43B(d), (da), (e) covering only interest payable to specific financial institutions, non-banking financial companies, scheduled banks or co-operative banks-World Bank or State Government loans not included-Disallowance deleted-Deduction only on actual payment-Statutory liability-Electricity duty collected from consumers but not remitted to Government-Assessee merely a conduit between consumer and Government-No independent liability-Disallowance rightly deleted.[S.43B(a), 43B(d), 43B(da), 43B(e)]