Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sharp Business System (Through Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno) v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 509/308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 (SC) Editorial : Sharp Business System v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 496/308 Taxman 285 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Advance to subsidiary-investment made for acquiring controlling interest in associate concern-Commercial expediency-Allowable as deduction. [S. 37 (1)]

Sharp Business System v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 496/ 308 Taxman 285 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial : Sharp Business System (Through Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno) v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 509/ 308 Taxman 285 (SC), allowed as revenue expenditure.

S. 32 : Depreciation-Intangible asset-Non-compete agreement-Right in personam-Not an intangible asset-Depreciation not allowable on non-compete fees.[S. 32(1)(ii)]

Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641/ 182 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Nalwa Investment Ltd v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641 (SC) Abhinandan Tradex Ltd v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641 (SC) Mansarover Tradex Ltd v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Nalwa Investment Ltd (2020) 427 ITR 229 (Delhi)(HC), affirmed, Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT [2020] 272 Taxman 391 / 425 ITR 420 (SC) distinguished.

S. 28(i) : Business income-Capital gains-Two provisions operate in distinct and independent fields-Mere receipt not sufficient to attract charge Commercial realisability required-Shares received on amalgamation-Shares held as stock-in-trade Nature of stock-in-trade wholly different from investment-No exception contemplated in case of business assets-Shares received on amalgamation-Shares held as stock-in-trade-Profit taxable as business profits-Burden on department to establish and Tribunal to apply the principles to evidence on record-Charge attracted only upon allotment of new shares-Not on appointed date or date of court sanction. [S. 2(1B), 2(14), 2(47), 28, 45(1), 47(vii) Art. 136]

PCIT v. Alchemist Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 284 /(2026) 484 ITR 48 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. UNO Menda Ltd [2024] 167 taxmann.com 284 /(2026) 484 ITR 48 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Disallowance is not attracted where there is no income exempt from tax-Disallowance is restricted to the extent of exempt income-Finance Bill, 2022, declaring that amendment to take effect from 1-4-2022 and accordingly applies in relation to assessment year 2022-2023 and subsequent assessment years-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [R.8D]

Give Foundation v. JCIT (2026) 484 ITR 602 /308 Taxman 38 (Guj)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Tribunal affirmed and applied proviso to section 2(15) to disentitle exemption under sections 11 and 12-Expenditure exceeded donations and no retention of income, but deficit of seven per cent-Proviso to section 2(15) not attracted and denial of exemption unsustainable.[S. 2(15), 12AA]

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal v. ACIT( Nagpur ) ( Trib) www. Itatonline.org

S. 69: Unexplained investments – Unexplained jewellery- Search – Considering the assessee’s age, social status, occupation, family background and customary gifts received on various occasions, the Tribunal held the possession of 48.9 gms to be reasonable. Diamond and precious-stone-studded jewellery cannot be excluded from the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 merely because it contains diamonds or precious stones. Accordingly, the entire addition of Rs.3,86,186/- was deleted – Enhanced rate of 60% – Search conducted on 26-07-2016 – Amendment by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 – Enhanced rate applicable prospectively – Not applicable where search was conducted prior to 15-12-2016. [ S. 69A , 115BBE , 132 ]

Shri Ranbir Singh v. DCIT, Central-2 www.itatonline.org .

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Powers- Award cost – Additional evidence – Conditional remand before the Assessing Officer -Demonetisation- Unexplained cash deposits, unsecured loans, sundry creditors and agricultural income – The assessee should, within one month from the date of the order, plant 500 trees and furnish documentary evidence thereof, or deposit the requisite cost with the NGO. [ S. 68 , 143(3) ]

Nikhil Nagindas Modi v. Dy .CIT ( Bom) ( HC) www.itaonline.org

S. 151: Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice -Validity of unsigned approval- The approval under section 151 dated 30-3-2021 was unsigned, the Assessing Officer had no valid jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148; consequently, the notice under section 148 and all consequential proceedings were quashed- The Court also held that section 292BC, being applicable retrospectively from 1-4-2021, had no application to the approval granted on 30-3-2021. [ S. 148 , 282A(2), 292BC , Art . 226 ]

Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 174 taxmann.com 170 / 234 TTJ 39 (UO) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S.142(2A): Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Mandatory statutory procedure not followed-Assessment void ab initio.[S. 142(2C), 143(3) 145(3)]

GFCL EV Products Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2025] 180 taxmann.com 17 / 128 ITR 1 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 115BAB: Tax on new manufacturing domestic companies-Concessional tax rate-Manufacturing company-Option once exercised continues for subsequent years-Adjustment under section 143(1) not permissible without opportunity of hearing. [S.143(1)]