Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Imperial College India Foundation v. Income-tax Officer (E) (2025) 214 ITD 761 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Accumulation of income-Educational purpose-Board resolution-Providing scholarship-Form No 10B-Entitled to claim benefit of section 11(2).[S.11(2), Form No 10]

Meshri Mahajan Vanda. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 638 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Accumulation of income-Amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2022, did not debar assessee from availing said time window in respect of existing accumulations and amendment had to be read prospectively in respect of fresh accumulations for the period pertaining to previous year starting from 1-4-2022 onwards. [S.11(3)(c)]

Arumugam Rajasekar. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 234 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(ii): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Salaries-Non-resident-Employed with TCS Malaysia-Rendered his services in Malaysia-Taxable in Malaysia even though the same was received in India-DTAA-India-Malaysia [S.5(2) Art. 16]

Om Charitable Chikitsa Samiti v. Assessing Officer (E) (2025) 214 ITD 633 (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Clerical omission, deduction was claimed under section 10(23C)(iiiad) instead of the correct section 10(23C)(vi)-Order of Assessing Officer rejecting the request for rectification was set aside. [S. 10(23C)(iiiad), 10(23C)(vi), 11,12, 12AA Form No.10B]

Chetana. v. CIT (E) (2025) 214 ITD 91 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Delay in filing application-No mala fide conduct or gross negligence-Delay was condoned-Matter was remanded to the file of CIT (E). [S.10(23C)(5)]

Metso OYJ. v. ACIT (IT) (2025) 214 ITD 533 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vii):Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-Income from providing centralized group services such as communication, marketing, strategy, HR, treasury, finance-Taxable in India as fees for technical services-Guarantee fee from its Indian subsidiaries for providing corporate and performance guarantees, since providing guarantees was not a regular business activity but an obligation arising from parent–subsidiary relationship, such fee was taxable in India as other income-DTAA-India-Finland.[Art. 7, 12, 21]

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 214 ITD 193 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 4: Charge of income-tax-Subsidy-Industrial Promotional Subsidy from State Government-Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.[S. 2(24)(viii)]

DCIT v. Armstrong Knitting Mills. (2025) 214 ITD 219 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 4: Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Subsidy-Income received on sale of Market Linked Focus Product Scheme (MLFPS) scrips was a capital receipt.[S. 2(24)(xviii) 28(i)]

Patidar Builder (P.) Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (2025) 214 ITD 77 (Indore) (Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e): Deemed dividend-Advance salary to director-Disallowance cannot be made.

Natesan Ekambaram. v. DCIT (2025) 214 ITD 615 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Capital gains-Failed to prove that distance from municipal limits exceeded 8 kms,-land constituted capital asset under section 2(14) and liable to capital gains tax.[S. 2(14),2(14)(iii)(b), 45]