Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


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(2025) 171 taxmann.com 472 / 475 ITR 115/343 CTR 585 / 247 DTR 310 ( 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]

American Express (India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 564 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Corporate social responsibility (CSR)-Allowed deduction under Section 80G-AO’s view is backed by various decisions of Tribunal-Assessment order can not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.[S.37(1), 80G, 143(3), Companies Act, S. 135]

Suresh Kantilal Thakkar. v. PCIT (2024) 208 ITD 395/232 TTJ 659 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Penny stock-Failure to make enquires-Revision is held to be valid.[S. 45, 147, 148]

Rajesh Kumar Jalan v. PCIT (2024) 113 ITR 188 / 208 ITD 349 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Proposal sent by Additional CIT-No independent application of mind-Revision order is quashed. [S.44AD, 68 143(3)]