Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dy. CIT (IT) v. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 594 (SC) Editorial : Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Dy.CIT(2023) 152 taxmann.com 575/457 ITR 189 (Karn)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Payment to Non-Resident telecommunication operators for provision of bandwidth and inter-connectivity usage-Not royalty-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Expansion of definition of royalty inserted later-Assessee cannot be expected to foresee future amendment at time of payment in earlier assessment years-Jurisdiction-No jurisdiction to tax income arising from extra-territorial source-Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement-Sovereign document between two countries-Applicable in Proceedings under Section 201 of the Act-DTAA-India-Belgium-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 195,201, Art, 136]

M. S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula (2025) 304 Taxman 81 (SC). Editorial : M. S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula (RFA No. 1318 /2004 c/w R.F.A No. 1317/2014 dt 16 -10-2019(Karn)(HC)

S. 2(47) : Transfer-Suit for declaration of ownership and possession of immovable property-General Power of Attorney-Sale deed executed by GPA holder after death of principal-GPA was general in nature and not coupled with interest-Agreement to sell does not convey title or ownership-Transfer of immovable property can be only by registered conveyance-Contemporaneous GPA and agreement to sell in favour of same person not sufficient to infer interest in property-In absence of registration of documents under section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act, GPA holder had no valid right, title or interest to execute sale deed-Sale deed executed by GPA holder after death of principal held invalid-Subsequent registered conveyances by legal heirs upheld. [Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S, 54, 55, Registration Act, 1908, S. 17(1)(b), 49, Indian Contract Act, 1872, S. 201, 202]

Shreyas Naynesh Modi v. ITO (Mum.)(SB)(Trib) www.itatonline.org .

S. 56 : Income from other sources – Immovable property – Stamp duty valuation – Reference to DVO – Safe harbour tolerance band – Once DVO value substitutes stamp duty value, tolerance limit of 10% applies also with reference to DVO valuation – Amendment held curative/beneficial – Addition deleted when difference between consideration and DVO value was only 6.09% . [S. 50C, 55A, 56(2)(x) , 143(3)]

Shilpa Shetty Kundra v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org .

S. 68 : Cash credits – Gift from spouse – Mere filing of gift deed, PAN and ITR acknowledgment of donor not sufficient – In absence of bank statements, clear trail of funds, source of donor and correlation of remittance, assessee failed to fully discharge primary onus – Matter restored to Assessing Officer for de novo verification – Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. [S. 56(2)(x), 115BBE, 133(6), 143(3), 250]

The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. v. CIT (E) & Ors. (Bom.)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

S. 12AB : Procedure for fresh registration – Registration of charitable trust – Renewal – Absence of irrevocability clause / dissolution clause in trust deed – Rejection of Form No. 10AB on ground that trust deed did not contain express clause that trust was irrevocable and that answering “Yes” in Row 6 amounted to furnishing false / incorrect information – Not justified – Public charitable trust registered under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is inherently irrevocable unless there is express power of revocation – Mere absence of irrevocability clause does not render trust revocable – Section 12AB does not prescribe such condition – Rejection orders quashed- Respondent No.1 directed to decide the applications of the Petitioners and all other similarly situated trusts, whose orders are hereby quashed, afresh and in accordance with the law and the ratio laid down in this judgment, within a period of six weeks from today. [S. 11, 12A, 12AA 12AB(4), 13, 61, 63, 80G, 115TD; Indian Trust Act , 1882 , S. 78, Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, S. 22(3A), 22(3B), 55, Form No .10AB , Art . 226 ]

L.T. Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief CIT (2025) 480 ITR 26 (Bom)(HC).

S. 279: Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner / Commissioner-Compounding of offences-Rejection of application for compounding solely on ground of delay of 36 months from date of complaint as per CBDT Guidelines-Act does not prescribe limitation-Mechanical rejection without exercising discretion held improper-Order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration. [S. 279(2), Art. 226]

KEC International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 480 ITR 138 / 304 Taxman 132 (Bom)(HC).

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Jurisdiction to be tested with reference to law prevailing on date of exercise of revisional power-Subsequent Supreme Court decision cannot invalidate revision-Lack of enquiry by Assessing Officer on section 32AB deduction and computation of book profits under section 115J rendered assessment erroneous and prejudicial-Commissioner’s order to be read as a whole and not by isolating one sentence-Where assessee did not challenge order giving effect to section 263, merits could not thereafter be agitated-Tribunal upholding assumption of jurisdiction affirmed. [S. 32AB, 115J, 260A]

PCIT v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd (2025) 480 ITR 657 / 180 taxmann.com 742 (Orissa) (HC) Editorial : PCIT v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd (2025) 480 ITR 659 /181 taxmann.com 346 (SC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Order passed by Tribunal in 2018-No endeavour by Department during six years to pursue matter-Matter must have reached finality-Appeal disposed of keeping questions of law open.

PCIT v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd (2025) 480 ITR 659 /181 taxmann.com 346 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd (2025) 480 ITR 657 / 180 taxmann.com 742 (Orissa) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Order passed by Tribunal in 2018-No endeavour by Department during six years to pursue matter-Matter must have reached finality-Appeal disposed of keeping questions of law open-Appeal cannot be dismissed on ground that appellant made no efforts to get it listed Failure to answer question put by court not ground to dismiss appeal-Appeal restored to High Court.[Art. 136]

Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 480 ITR 496 (SC). Editorial: CIT v. Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 483 ITR 621 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 245H : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Power-Grant of immunity from prosecution and penalty-High Court setting aside order of Settlement Commission and remanding matter for reconsideration on ground that assessee had not made full and true disclosure at the outset-Special Leave Petition dismissed with clarification that remand direction of High Court would remain unaffected and matter to be examined afresh in accordance with law without being influenced by observations of High Court. [S. 245C, Art. 136]