Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha (2024) 469 ITR 149 / 301 Taxman 551 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha [2023] 156 taxmann.com 509 /(2024) 469 ITR 142 (P & H)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Deposits in foreign bank account-Deposit belonged to the nephew and not assessee-Sufficient evidence provided-No additions in the hands of the assessee-210 days delay-Reaons for condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient-SLP of Revenue is dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 69, Art.136]

Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 407 (SC) Editorial : Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024) 167 taxmann.com 323 (Bom)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Civil contractor-Widening and strengthening of existing road-Purchase of marble for construction of High way Authority-Parties whose name cheques were alleged to be issued had deposed on oath that they had neither encashed cheque nor received amount-Order of Tribunal affirming the disallowance is affirmed-SLP of assessee is dismissed.[Art. 136]

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. CIT [2024) 301 Taxman 463/ 469 ITR 280/ 341 CTR 65 /243 DTR 1 (SC) Editorial: Decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd ( 2008) 218 CTR 417/ 5 DTR 239 /(2019) 316 ITR 391 (Raj)(HC), is reversed.

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Broken period Interest –Stock in trade-Allowable as revenue expenditure. [S.28(i)]

CIT v. Subex Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 404 (SC) Editorial: Subex Ltd. v. CIT-III (2021) 132 taxmann.com 96 /285 Taxman 350(Karn)(HC)

S. 35D : Amortization of Preliminary expenses (General)-Claim of was granted by Assessing Officer-Claim could not be disallowed in subsequent year by Commissioner through his revisionary powers without disturbing decision in initial year —No challenge is made against the rectification. order passed by revenue-SLP disposed as infructuous.[S. 154,263, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 316 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (2023) 155 taxmann.com 322 / 458 ITR 593 (SC)

S. 35ABB : Licence to operate telecommunication services-Classification of royalty payment as revenue expenditure-Appeal de-tagged for specific consideration. [S. 37(1)]

CIT (IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 402 (SC) Editorial: CIT (IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd (2024) 159 taxmann.com 278 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Revenue from software sales to Indian clients, said revenue could not be treated as royalty and subjected to Indian taxation-DTAA-India-USA [S.9(1)(vii), 195, art. 12, Art.136]

Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Co. v. CIT (IT) (2024) 469 ITR 31/ 301 Taxman 392 (SC) Editorial: Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Company v. CIT (2024) 299 Taxman 334 /465 ITR 649 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(v) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Interest-Other income-Guarantee to various banks to extend credit facilities to its Indian subsidiaries-Guarantee charges were not received by assessee in respect of any debt owed to it by its Indian subsidiary-Guarantee fee would not fall within expression ‘interest’ in article 12 of India UK DTAA –Accrue-Arise-Income-SLP of assessee is dismissed-DTAA-India-UK-Northern Ireland / [S. 2(28A), 5(2), 260A, Art.7, 12(5), 23(3), Art. 136]

KEC International Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom)(HC)(www.itatonline.org

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Book profit – Decapitalization of interest- Failure of Assessing Officer to examine computation of book profits – Order of Tribunal affirming the revision order of Commissioner is affirmed . [S. 32AB, 115J, 260A]

Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd v. CIT ( Bom)( HC) .www.itatonline.org .

S. 271(1): Penalty – Concealment – Revaluing the asset, introducing it into the partnership, and withdrawing substantial funds, amounted to a device to evade tax rather than a genuine business transaction- The Explanation offered by the Appellant was found to be patently false – Levy of concealment penalty is affirmed . [ S.260A ]

Maya K. Dharwani. (Smt.) v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 77 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of claim-Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Tribunal in quantum appeal partially allowed deduction under section 54F, Assessing Officer is directed to recompute quantum of penalty. [S. 54EC, 54F]