Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sugee Seven Developers LLP. v. ITO, TDS. (2025) 215 ITD 296 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.194IC: Deduction at source-Payment under specified agreement-Joint development agreement-Exchange for constructed area and monetary consideration-Payments constituted those under a specified agreement as per section 45(5A)-Attracted TDS at 10 per cent under section 194IC-Treated as assessee in default-Short deduction of tax deduction at source-Payee offered the income and paid tax-Matter was to be remitted to Assessing Officer to verify if payee offered income to tax, and if so, assessee should not be treated as assessee in default. [S. 45(5A), 201, 201(IA), Form No 26A]

Pradeep Kumar Banerjee v. CIT (A) (Kol.)(Trib) (UR)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Order passed by ignoring the revised return filed by assessee-No satisfaction recorded by Pr. CIT before granting approval-Reassessment order was quashed and set aside. [S. 147, 148]

Sanjana Clothings (P.) Ltd. v. AID, CPC (2025) 215 ITD 256 (Indore) (Trib.)

S. 115BAA: Tax on income of certain domestic companies-Determination of tax in certain cases-Failure to file Form No 10IC-Assessee was to be directed to file Form No. 10IC within one month from the date of receipt of this order.[Form No 10IC]

Ashok Kumar. v. Assessment Unit (2025) 215 ITD 70 (Dehradun) (Trib.)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained cash-Demonetisation-Recorded reason for reopening under section 148A(d) was found incorrect-Addition made on the basis of recorded reasons was deleted by CIT(A)-No further additions beyond the original reason could be sustained-All additions made without jurisdiction were deleted.[S.69A, 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d)]

Lalita Agarwal v. ACIT (2025) 215 ITD 499 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 147: Reassessment-Legal representatives-Information from Investigation Wing-Assessment orders were framed in the name of deceased assessee-Reopening notice and assessment orders were quashed and set aside. [S. 148, 159]

ACIT 3 (2) (1) v. Solapur Yedeshi Tollway Ltd. (2025) 215 ITD 395 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 147: Reassessment-Change of opinion-Interest-free advances-No fresh information-Reassessment was quashed-Notional Interest-Order of CIT(A) deleting the notional interest was affirmed. [S. 4, 28(i),37(1), 143(3), 148]

Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 532 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 145: Method of accounting-Estimation of income-Income recognition-Toll contractor awarded with a 15-year toll collection and maintenance contract-Only net consideration as income instead of gross receipts and expenses-Assessing Officer was not right in taxing gross income and ignoring estimated maintenance costs.[S. 4, 5]

DCIT v. Amardeep Constructions. (2025) 215 ITD 322 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 145: Method of accounting-Project completion method (PCM)-Real estate developers-Consistently accepted-Application of Percentage Completion Method by Assessing Officer was unjustified-Survey-Merely on basis of a statement recorded during survey proceedings under sections 133A/131, without any corroborative evidence, could not be sustained. [S.131, 133A]

BMW India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 215 ITD 21 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Limitation-Final assessment order dated 28-06-2022 was passed after DRP directions on 22-4-2022-Beyond the time limit prescribed under section 144C(13) Barred by limitation-Order was quashed.[S.92CA, 144C(13)]

DCIT v. Jaimuni Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, (Mum)(Trib)(UR)

S. 80P: Co-operative societies-Commission income from MSEDCL Bill Collection-Services rendered to members-Entitled to exemption. [S.80P(2) (c)]