Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Morgan Stanley India Capital Pvt Ltd [2025] 177 taxmann.com 699 (Bom) (HC)

S.14A: Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Interest-free funds-Non-interest-bearing funds were more than the investment made in tax-free securities; it would be presumed that the investment made by the assessee would be from its interest-free funds and, thus, no disallowance under section 14A could be made-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.260A, Rule 8D]

PCIT v. Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd. [2025] 180 taxmann.com 759 (Bom)(HC)

S. 10A: Free trade zone-STP Unit-New infrastructure, plant and machinery, software and separately recruited workforce-Undertaking not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of existing business-Deduction allowable-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 10A(2), 260A]

Vidya Sagar Sharma v. UOI(2026) 349 CTR 121 /184 taxmann.com 44 (J&K)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2024.
S 91 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished-Prior tax position revived when assessee does not comply with provisions / requirements of DTVSV Act 2020 and hence eligible under DTVSV Act 2024.[DTVSV Act, 2020, S. 4(6), 5(1)Art. 226]

Shiv Kumar Jaiswal v. State of UP. (2026) 349 CTR 228/ 182 taxmann.com 684 (All)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-When the subject matter of the penalty, which was the very basis on which criminal proceedings had been launched, was set aside, criminal proceedings could not be allowed to continue.[S.271(1)(c), 277]

Jyotsana Investments Co. Ltd. v. R.K De (2026) 183 taxmann.com 293 / 349 CTR 406(Cal)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Revenue had accepted statutory compounding fee under section 279 in relation to alleged offences under sections 276B and 278B-Continuation of criminal proceedings after such compounding constituted abuse of process and liable to be quashed. [S. 278B, 279, Art.21, 226]

Venkateshan R.V. v. Sanjay @ Sanjay Sait & Ors. (2026) 349 CTR 105 / 182 taxmann.com 845 (Mad)(HC)

S. 269ST: Mode of undertaking transactions-Intimation of heavy cash transaction to jurisdictional Income Tax Authorities in civil recovery suits pursuant to Supreme Court guidelines-Assessee could not be compelled to reveal his PAN to the debtors. [S.271DA]

Miraj Digvijay Shah v. Asst. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 389/183 taxmann.com 174 (Cal)(HC)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Search and seizure-Inspection of seized jewellery-Supply of reasons to the assessee not required under rule 112(13)-Power to reopen sealed package not predicated on information in possession of Revenue-Notice for inspection valid. [S. 132, Income-tax Rules, 1962, r. 112]

Bechtel Power Corporation & Anr. v. ACIT (2026) 349 CTR 803 (Delhi)(HC). Editorial : Bechtel Power Corporation & Anr. v. ACIT (2026) 349 CTR 807 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Review petition-Mistake apparent from record-Assessment-Processing of return-No error apparent when the matter was fully heard, and directions were issued to process returns in accordance with law-Review not maintainable-Assessment-Processing of return.[S.139, 143(3), 260A (7)]

Udayan Bhaskaran Nair v. Dy. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 545 / 183 taxmann.com 47 (Bom)(HC)

S. 245 : Refunds-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment of refund against demand cannot be made when prior demand is not evidenced by a valid demand notice/intimation-Foreign tax credit-Petitioner was entitled to credit of foreign taxes paid/withheld in UK as reflected in Form-16, notwithstanding that claim was not separately entered under Relief under Section 90/91 field of return-Held, yes-Whether demand for Assessment Year 2010-11 was to be deleted and refund, if any, was to be granted. [S.90, 91, 143(1), 156, Art. 226]

Pr. CIT v. HCL Infotech (P) Ltd. (2026) 349 CTR 609 / 184 taxmann.com 38 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 244A: Refund-Interest on refund-Technical glitch causing TDS credit not reflected in e-filed revised return though appearing in Form 26AS-Assessee promptly informed Assessing Officer and lodged complaint with CPC-Denial of interest by Assessing Officer on ground of lapse by assessee-Not justified-Under section 244A (2), power to exclude any period attributable to assessee vests only in Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, not Assessing Officer. [S. 154]