Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sunita Sherwani v. ITO (2025) 177 taxmann.com 437/ 347 CTR 408 / 255 DTR 161 (Chattisgarh)(HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Income form undisclosed sources—Cash deposits in bank account-Demonetisation period—Bank account statement of last three financial years and return of her income for last six financial years-Allowing the appeal the Court held that the Assessing Officer ought to have been verified in terms of clauses 1.1 and 1.3 of CBDT Circular No. 3, dated 21-2-2017 before making addition,-Matter was remitted back to Assessing Officer to conduct verification and pass an order afresh. [S. 254(1), 260A]

Snerea Properties (P) Ltd. v ACIT (2025) 347 CTR 722 / 254 DTR 165 / 306 Taxman 126 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Shares-Sale of property-DVO’s report estimating market value of property that was neither sold nor transferred by assessee-Incidence of tax, if any, would be confined to transacting parties-Addition affirmed by the Tribunal deleted.[S. 260A]

George Stanley v. DCIT (IT) (2025) 178 taxmann.com 187 / 347 CTR 299 / 255 DTR 57 (Ker)(HC)

S.54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Agricultural land-Capital asset-Even if claim was not made in return-The Assessing Officer cannot reject the claim on technical ground-Matter remanded-Assessee had not adduced any evidence to prove agricultural activity and documents of Sub-Registrar’s office where sale deed was registered did not contain any endorsement as regards nature of property to be agricultural-Denial of exemption affirmed. [S. 2(14), 10 (37), 45, 260A]

Narendra I. Bhuva v. ACIT (2025) 177 taxmann.com 540 /347 CTR 549 (Bom)(HC)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Capital asset—Personal effects-Vintage car— Failed to provide evidence proving personal use of vintage car-Gain taxable as capital gains.[S. 2(14)]

Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. ADIT (2025) 347 CTR 890 / 254 DTR 217 /177 taxmann.com 734 (Mad)(HC)

S. 44AB : Audit of accounts-Business-Profession-Digital marketing—Digital marketing cannot be treated as profession-It should be treated as business—Turnover below 5 crores-Assessee was not therefore liable to file audit report in terms of proviso to s. 44AB(a).[S.28(i), Art. 226]

Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm v. CIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 308/ 347 CTR 504 / 254 DTR 73 (Bom)(HC)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Dead horses-Capital assets-Insurance claim-Capital receipts cannot be assessed under section 41(1) of the Act.[S.45]

PCIT v. Eygbs (India) (P) Ltd. (2025) 180 taxmann.com 681 / 347 CTR 280 / 254 DTR 385 (Karn)(HC)

S.14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Investments made and liquidated within year resulting in no opening or closing balances-Order of Tribunal deleting the ad hoc disallowance under section 14A at 10 percent of exempt income was affirmed. [S. 260A, R.8D]

Doma T. Bhutia v. UOI (2025) 347 CTR 114 / 307 Taxman 4 (SC) Editorial :affirmed, Dr. Doma T. Bhutia v. UOI (2025) 343 CTR 652 / 172 taxxmmann.com 293 (Sikkim)(HC)

S. 10(26AAA): Income of Sikkimese-Individual-Constitutional validity-—Expression “Sikkimese” has been defined only for the purpose of the Explanation to S. 10(26AAA)-Order of High Court dismissing the petition affirmed. [Art. 136, 271F(k)]

CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2025) 305 Taxman 4 / 347 CTR 109 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(IT Appeal No. 250 of 2005 dt. 7-12-2017) (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Sales tax exemption from State Government-Subsidy held to be capital receipt, and High Court order on that issue affirmed-Income accrual-Duty drawback-Income does not accrue merely on export; Tribunal was justified in remanding matter for limited verification whether claim was accepted by authorities in relevant year-High Court erred in interfering with remand-Tribunal’s order restored.[S. 5, Art. 136]

Dy. Director of Income-tax (BPU Unity) v. Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (2025) 305 Taxman 418 (SC) Editorial : Dy. Director of Income-tax (BPU Unity) v. Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (2025)174 taxxmann.com 693 (SC) affirmed, Governrmrnt of NCT of Delhi v.K.L. Rathu Steels Ltd (2024) 7 SCC 315, followed.

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 2(8) : Benami property-Authorities concerned could not initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to coming into force of 2016 Act viz. 25-10-2016-SLP dismissed-Review petition is also dismissed. [S. 3, 5, Art. 136]