Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Kasi Visvanathar Koviloor-Foundation v.DCIT (E) (2025) 235 TTJ 827 / 174 taxmann.com 489 (Chennai) Trib)

S. 12AB: Procedure for fresh registration-Wrong mentioning of religious-cum-charitable in the Form No.10AB-Rejection of application was set aside-CIT(E) is also directed to examine the grant of approval under s. 80G after deciding the application for grant of registration under s. 12AB. [S.80G]

Dwarika Greens Foundation v. CIT (E) (2025) 235 TTJ 821 / 173 taxmann.com 744 (Ahd) Trib)

S. 12AB: Procedure for fresh registration-Trust for the benefit of residents of a particular housing society-Denial of registration was affirmed. [S.11, 12, 12AB(4), 13(1(b)]

ITO (E) v. Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation (2025) 235 TTJ 234 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-contribution of Rs. 50,000 to the trustees of ABET for creating that trust-Not specified person-Lease rent paid by the assessee for a building which was provided free of charge to ABET to enable it to start a school-No disallowance can be made.-Income from house property-Deduction is not allowable-Method of accounting-Cash system-Interest income-Addition on account of interest accrued and not received was deleted. [S. 13(2)(a), 13(2(b), 13(2)(g), 24(a), 145]

Insurance Brokers Association of India v. ITO (E) (2025) 235 TTJ 22 / 175 taxmann.com 580 (Mum) Trib)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Principle of mutuality-Participation in the annual meet for which the sponsorship fees are received is free of cost-It cannot be held to be a service for a fee for rendering service-Proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable-AO is not correct in denying the benefit of exemption. [S. 2(15)]

DCIT (IT) v. Bay Lines (Mauritius) (2025) 235 TTJ 435 / 172 taxmann.com 857 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Shipping business-Place of effective management-Permanent Establishment-FCIPL is functionally independent of the assessee-FCIPL was doing business for other enterprises also and more than 77.60 per cent of its revenue or the income was from other independent parties and only 22.32 per cent revenue was derived from assessee-FCIPL was an independent agent and not carrying out any work wholly and almost wholly for the assessee-company-Assessee has no agency PE in India-Income from operation of ships is not taxable in India-DTAA-India-Mauritius [S.90, Art. 5, 7,8]

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2025) 235 TTJ 329/ 174 taxmann.com 866 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue receipt-Compensation received from supplier on account of failure of performance guarantee parameters of wind turbine generator-Capital receipt.

Mohamedali Shabanali Badami v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org .

S. 148: Reassessment – Limitation – Notice issued under section 148 after expiry of six years under the erstwhile law is barred by limitation notwithstanding that notice under section 148A(b) was issued within the limitation period – Reassessment quashed. [S. 147, 148A(b) 149]

Prakash Bhaguji Katkade v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline.org .

S. 69A: Unexplained money – Alleged on-money paid for purchase of flat – Principles of Natural Justice – Addition based solely on statement of builder and uncorroborated Excel sheets seized during search – No incriminating material supplied to assessee – Cross-examination denied – Addition deleted. [S. 132(4), 147, 148, 254(1), Evidence Act, 1872, S. 65B ]

JM Financial Credit Solutions Ltd. v. DCIT www.itatonline.org .

S. 80G: Donation-Deduction – Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure – Donation made as part of CSR obligation to an institution approved under section 80G is eligible for deduction – Disallowance under Explanation 2 to section 37(1) does not bar deduction under Chapter VI-A. [ S . 37(1), Companies Act, 2013, S. 135]

Pr. CIT v. Jas Trading Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.)(HC). www.itatonline.org

S. 147: Reassessment – Supply of reasons –Accommodation entries – Furnishing only the gist of the reasons instead of the complete recorded reasons vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Reassessment based solely on a statement which had already been retracted and whose retraction had been accepted by the appellate authority does not constitute a valid “reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment. [S. 143(3), 148 ]