Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 480 ITR 496 (SC). Editorial: CIT v. Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 483 ITR 621 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 245H : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Power-Grant of immunity from prosecution and penalty-High Court setting aside order of Settlement Commission and remanding matter for reconsideration on ground that assessee had not made full and true disclosure at the outset-Special Leave Petition dismissed with clarification that remand direction of High Court would remain unaffected and matter to be examined afresh in accordance with law without being influenced by observations of High Court. [S. 245C, Art. 136]

Interim Board for Settlement v. Krushang Prakashbhai Soni (2025) 480 ITR 695 (SC). Editorial : Vetrivel Infrastructure v. Dy. CIT (2024) 468 ITR 665 (Guj)(HC).

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Law amended with retrospective effect from 1-2-2021, but notified on 1-4-2021-Application filed prior to 31-3-2021-No prohibition in statute as on that date for assessee to make such application-Interim Board holding applications invalid-High Court held order of Interim Board not sustainable and remanded matters for consideration on merits-SLP dismissed-Question of law kept open [Ss. 245A(b), 245C, 245D(4), Art. 136].

Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 480 ITR 496 (SC). Editorial : CIT v. Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 483 ITR 621 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Immunity from penalty and prosecution-High Court held that there was no foundation for finding of full and true disclosure by Settlement Commission-Matter remanded for reconsideration of grant of immunity-Review petition dismissed-SLP dismissed by Supreme Court with clarification that Settlement Commission shall decide matter independently in accordance with law and without being influenced by observations of High Court. [S. 245H, Art. 136]

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 480 ITR 164 / 171 taxmann.com 469 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 237 : Refund-Limitation-Excess TDS-CBDT Circular prescribing two-year time limit for refund claim of tax erroneously deducted at source held ultra vires-In absence of statutory limitation under ss. 237/239, Board cannot curtail substantive right to claim refund-Interest on FCCBs/ECBs utilised for overseas subsidiary held covered by s. 9(1)(v)(b), hence no TDS deductible-Taxing statutes are interpreted by following the principles of strict interpretation. While interpreting a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment. [S. 9(1)(v)(b), 119, 195, 200, 203, 239, R. 31, Art. 226]

Remote Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 480 ITR 24 / 180 taxmann.com 209 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds -Erroneous deposit of tax under incorrect head-Assessee subsequently deposited tax under correct head -Excess payment due to error not disputed -Department directed to verify challans and grant refund if no other impediment -If refund cannot be processed, reasons to be communicated in writing -Assessee entitled to avail remedies in accordance with law. [Art. 226]

Malco Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 480 ITR 250 / 304 Taxman 61 (Bom)(HC), Editorial : SLP dismissed,, Malco Energy Ltd v. ACIT (2025) 480 ITR 257 / 304 Taxman 586 (SC).

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Book profit-In fiscal matters, bank guarantee is not an appropriate substitute for cash deposit and unconditional stay should ordinarily not be granted. [S.115J, Art. 226]

Malco Energy Ltd v.ACIT (2025) 480 ITR 257 /304 Taxman 586 (SC) Editorial : Malco Energy Ltd v. ACIT (2025) 480 ITR 250/304 Taxman 61 (Bom)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Book profit-Mere existence of a strong prima facie case does not automatically warrant unconditional stay-Tribunal having upheld addition under section 115JB, conditional stay justified-Pending rectification application and possible reduction in demand considered-Interim relief granted on deposit of Rs. 60 crores within four weeks-SLP dismissed. [S. 115JB, Art.136]

Equity Intelligence AIF Trust v. CBDT (2025) 480 ITR 278 / 306 Taxman 214 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 164 : Representative assessee—Charge of tax—Beneficiaries unknown—Alternative Investment Fund (Category III)—Where SEBI law prohibits an AIF from accepting investments or identifying investors before registration, non-mention of investors/beneficial interests in original trust deed cannot attract maximum marginal rate under section 164—Doctrine of impossibility (“lex non cogit ad impossibilia”) applied—Once beneficiaries and their shares become determinable under contribution agreements, requirement of law stands satisfied—CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2014 could not be applied in such impossible circumstances—Board for Advance Rulings order quashed. [Ss. 161, 245Q, 245R(4), SEBI Act, 1992, s. 12, SEBI (AIF) Regulations, 2012, regs. 3, 6(3), Art. 226]

CIT v. Vedanta Ltd. (2025) 480 ITR 664 (Mad)(HC)

S. 158BC: Block assessment-Search and seizure-Deemed seizure-Limitation-Search initiated on 8-12-1999-Prohibitory order under section 132(3) on 21-1-2000-Search concluded on 2-3-2000-Assessment order dated 28-3-2002 not barred by limitation-Matter remanded to Tribunal to decide on merits. [S. 132, 132(3), 143(3), 158BE, 260A]

PCIT v. Sneh Lata Sawhney (2025) 480 ITR 416 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 153A : Assessment-Search–Limitation-Exchange of information under Indo-Swiss DTAA-Reference made to Swiss authorities for period prior to 1-4-2011 not maintainable under amended Article 26-Benefit of exclusion of time under Explanation (ix) to S. 153B not available-Assessment orders rightly held barred by limitation-DTAA-India-Swiss. [S.69C,90, 132, 143(3), 153B, Expl. (ix), Art. 14, 26]