Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PPK Newsclick Studio (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 509 (SC) Editorial : PPK Newsclick Studio (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 172 taxmann.com 778 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Cash credits -SLP of assessee disposed of by granting liberty to assessee to challenge assessment order relating to assessment year 2022-23 before Commissioner (Appeals) along with an application for grant of stay and for waiver of condition to deposit 20 per cent of disputed tax demand in terms of Office Memoranda issued by CBDT. [S. 250, Art. 136]

Imageads & Communications (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 304 Taxman 47 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-When the income was not offered for taxation credit for tax deducted at source was rightly denied by the Tribunal. Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 198, 260A]

Lufthansa Cargo AG v. ACIT (2025) 304 Taxman 671/481 ITR 790 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Income Deemed to accrue or arise in India -Shipping, Inland Waterways Transport and Air Transport- Directed the issuance of the certificate for nil withholding tax under section 197- However, it is clarified that issuance of the certificate shall not preclude the Assessing Officer from examining whether the income/receipts of the assessee are chargeable to tax in India in assessment proceedings, uninfluenced by this order- India -Germany. [S. 9(1)(i), 195(3), Rule, 29B(1), 29B(2), Art, 8, Art. 226]

CIT (IT) v. Urban Ladder Home Decor Solutions (P.) Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 155 (Karn)(HC)

S. 195 :Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums-Income-Deemed to accrue or arise in India -Royalty FTS-Advertisement/Web charges) -Not liable to deduct tax at source-Order of Tribunal affirmed- DTAA -India -USA. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)vii),201(1), Art. 12]

CIT (IT&TP) v. Star Rays (2025) 304 Taxman 180 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Star Rays (2023) 294 Taxman 641 / 457 ITR 1 (Guj)(HC).

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Diamond testing / certification charges paid to GIA USA through Hong Kong laboratory-Mere rendering of services, without making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, cannot be treated as FTS under Art. 12 of India-USA DTAA-Assessee not liable to deduct tax at source-SLP of Revenue dismissed. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), Art. 12, Art. 136]

CIT (TDS) v. Vodafone Essar Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 389 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-An agreement with IGSPT for availing services-Not liable to deduct tax at source. No substantial question of law. [S.260A]

Lupin Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CPCID (2025) 304 Taxman 676 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake -Mistake apparent from the record- Return of income-Assessee was directed to file order treating return as invalid with revenue and a copy of ITR form uploaded with system of revenue and return which was treated as defective. On receipt of above documents, revenue shall dispose of rectification petition filed by assessee after giving assessee an opportunity of hearing. [S. 44AB, 139(9), Art. 226]

ITO v. Saksham Commodities Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 515 (SC) ACIT v. Chander Parkash Gupta (2025) 304 Taxman 607 (SC) ACIT v.Satyapal Arya (2025) 304 Taxman 179 (SC) Editorial : ITO v. Saksham Commodities Ltd(2024) 161 taxmanncom 485/ 464 ITR 1 / 338 CTR 418 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Block Assessment-Satisfaction note-Block period-Seized material must pertain to relevant assessment year-Bearing-Notices issued in absence of incriminating material based on non-speaking satisfaction notes unsustainable-Satisfaction notes in these petitions had alluded to incriminating material having been recovered for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively, and the materials that were co relatable had been specifically identified. All other contentions of parties could be raised in the ongoing proceedings- SLP dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 132, 153A 158BB, Art. 136]

Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 471 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After expiry of three years-It would be Principal Chief Commissioner who would be liable to be recognized as being competent authority- Sanction accorded by Principal Commissioner for reassessment under section 148A is not valid-Reassessment notice and consequential order was quashed. [S.148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

ITO (E) v. Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Alandi Dewachi (2025) 304 Taxman 667 (SC) Editorial : Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Alandi Dewachi v.ITO (2025) 173 taxmann.com 62 (Bom)(HC)

151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Deposited donations received in cash in its bank account-Reassessment notice and sanction was without application of mind -Delay of 246 days-Not satisfactorily explained-SLP dismissed. [S. 11, 12A, 147, 148, Art. 136]