Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Tolani Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025)472 ITR 121/ 165 taxmann.com 697 (Bom)(HC)

S. 80I : Industrial undertaking- For computing deduction under section 80I, it would be necessary to give effect to, and factor in, deduction allowed under section 33AC and if result of such deduction under section 33AC was that there was no profit from ship-Deduction under section 80I is allowable-Shipping business-Reserves-Reserve created to be primarily used for acquiring new ship- Cannot partake character of profit-Deduction inextricably linked to business of shipping with direct nexus to shipping operations brought out in provision itself-Total income-Income from capital gains and other sources contribute merely in computation of scale of cap on deduction-Profits of ship to be given effect to and factored in for computation of deduction under Sectionm80I- Provision for creating reserve to acquire new ship-Amendment not applicable to relevant assessment years prior to effective date-Proportionate allocation- Court cannot provide own basis and proportions for apportionment in appeal- Interpretation of meaning of word Ship in provision.[S.80I(3), 80I(6),260A]

Mathurbhai P. Viradiya, HUF v. ITO (2025) 472 ITR 217 (Guj)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits- Cash deposit in the bank-No reasonable explanation- Addition is affirmed. [S.260A]

UC Mas Mental Arithmetic (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025)472 ITR 585 (Mad)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Increase in payment to director- Company approved on 30-9-2004-Expenditure not deductible in Assessment Year 2004-05. [S. 145, 260A]

PCIT v. Sinhagad Technical Education Society (2025)472 ITR 15 (Bom)(HC) Editorial: PCIT v. Sinhagad Technical Education Society (2025)472 ITR 18 (SC), High Court is directed to consider second question of law along with other questions admitted.

S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions- Tribunal right in holding that disqualification would apply only to that part of income which was in violation of conditions-No substantial question of law- Circular No. 387 Dated 6-7-1984 (1985) 152 ITR 1 (St)- Search and seizure- Documents found in the course of search- Question of law admitted. [S. 13(1)(c), 260A].

CIT (IT) v. Cognyte Technologies Israel Ltd. [2023] 155 taxmann.com 292 / (2025)472 ITR 476 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India- Royalty- Transfer of off-the-shelf- Software-Not assessable in India as royalty-DTAA-India- Israel. [S. 260A, Art. 12 (3)]

Percival Joseph Pereira v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 45 : Capital gains – Interim order – Year of taxability of capital gains on compensation- Interest on compensation-Income from other sources – Delay of 404 days – Delay is condoned – The compensation and interest received by in pursuance of an interim order of the Bombay High Court cannot be taxed in the year of receipt – Addition is deleted – Compensation and interest can be taxed only when the final order is passed by the High Court . [ S. 45(5)(b) , 45(5)( c) ,56(2)(viii) Land Acquisition Act , 1894, S. 11, 18 ]

Dhanraj Ramchandra Chandwani v. ITO ( Pune )( Trib) ( UR)

S. 272A : Penalty – Failure to answer questions – Sign statements – Furnish information – No notice were received – Sufficient and reasonable cause for non-attendance – Without providing sufficient time to reply cannot be treated as non-compliance u/s.272A(1)(d) -Penalty is deleted . [ S. 272A(1)(d) ]

Shilpa Shetty Kundra v. DCIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 342 ( (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 272A : Penalty – Failure to answer questions – Sign statements – Furnish information -The penalty cannot be imposed when AO expresses satisfaction with the assessee’s compliance.[ S. 272A(1)(d) ]

Panda Infratech Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2025) 233 TTJ 356 (Cuttack) ( Trib)

S. 271AAB:Peanlty -Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-Assessment completed u/s. 143(3) – Addition made – Reopening u/s. 147 – Again additions made – Two penalty proceedings for both addition – Merging of penalty is not valid – Not specifying the charge – Barred by limitation- Penalty order is quashed . [ S. 274 ,275 ] .

Sudesh Gupta v. ACIT. [2025] 121 ITR 1/ 210 ITD 436 (Delhi) ( Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – No specific limb in penalty notice – Penalty order is set aside.[ S. 274 ]