Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (2024)467 ITR 31/ 64 300 Taxman 95 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Dharmanandan Diamonds (P.) Ltd. (2023) 294 Taxman 29/(2024)467 ITR 26 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Revaluation-Actual cost-Taken over assets and liabilities of the firm-Actual cost of assets will be actual cost which assessee paid to predecessor after revaluing assets-Entitled to claim depreciation for subsequent years on basis of actual cost paid-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 43(1), Proviso, R. 5, Art. 136]

PCIT v. ITC LTD. (2024)467 ITR 465 (Cal)(HC)

S.28(i):Business income-Capital or Revenue-Capital asset-Relinquishment in settlement agreement-Receipt on Arbitral Award-Difference between lease and licence-Trading and service agreement-No rights conferred except running hotel-Termination of agreement as result of settlement or compromise of all claims, counter-claims and disputes-Receipt on Arbitral Award on termination of agreement-Revenue receipt and not capital receipt.[S.2(14), 4, 45, 260A,Indian Easement Act, 1882 S. 52]

N. H. Kapadia Education Trust v. Asst. CIT(E) (2024) 467 ITR 278 (Guj)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Corpus fund-Corpus Donations-Securing admission-Tribunal is not justified in holding ineligible for exemption on corpus Fund.[S.11(1)(a), S. 11, Property held for charitable purposes.[S. 11(1)(d), 260A]

CIT v. Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool (2024)467 ITR 32 (AP)(HC) Editorial : Delay of 496 in filing the SLP is not condoned, SLP is dismissed. Asst. CIT v. Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool (2024)467 ITR 32/ 300 Taxman 450 (SC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Denial of exemption When the registration is granted by the CIT(E), further probe by Assessing Officer into objects of Trust based on such objects is not permissible-Activities of to identify, enrol, allot work, regulate operation of private workers from time of inception-Activities for advancement of general public utility-Surplus earned retained for carrying out activity-Cannot be treated as business activity-Exemption cannot be denied-Advances to Trustees-Interest recognised on accrual basis-Loans covered by adequate security and interest-Cannot be treated as investments in violation of S.11(5) 11(3) of the Act-No violation of Section 13(1)(c). 13(2) of the Act. Accumulation of funds-Form 10 filed for Assessment Year 1999-2000 showing purpose of accumulation-Purpose of accumulation is not general in nature-Activities carried on in accordance with approved charitable objects for which assessee was formed and registered-No violation of Section 11(2) [S. 11(2) 11(4A), 11(5), 12A, 13(1)(c), 13(2)]

Asst. CIT v. Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool (2024)467 ITR 32/ 300 Taxman 450 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool (2024)467 ITR 32 (AP)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Denial of exemption When the registration is granted by the CIT(E), further probe by Assessing Officer into objects of Trust based on such objects is not permissible-Activities of to identify, enrol, allot work, regulate operation of private workers from time of inception-Activities for advancement of general public utility-Surplus earned retained for carrying out activity-Cannot be treated as business activity-Exemption cannot be denied-Advances to Trustees-Interest recognised on accrual basis-Loans covered by adequate security and interest-Cannot be treated as investments in violation of S.11(5) 11(3) of the Act-No violation of Section 13(1)(c). 13(2) of the Act. Accumulation of funds-Form 10 filed for Assessment Year 1999-2000 showing purpose of accumulation-Purpose of accumulation is not general in nature-Activities carried on in accordance with approved charitable objects for which assessee was formed and registered-No violation of Section 11(2)-Delay of 496 days in filing the SLP-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 11(2) 11(4A), 11(5), 12A, 13(1)(c), 13(2) Art. 136]

CIT(IT) v. Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd. (2024) 467 ITR 302/ 165 taxmann.com 85 / 340 CTR 265/ 242 DTR 1 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Provision of connectivity solutions-Services to customers of Indian companies outside India-Consideration received on basis of agreements from telecommunication operators for Bandwidth and inter-connectivity usage of their customers-Provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement override statutory provisions and amendments thereto-Receipts not assessable as royalty in India-No alienation of copyrighted articles, patents, trademarks, designs, models, secret formulae or processes, property or information-Mere advantage or benefit derived from service provided cannot be countenanced to fall within meaning of expressions use or right to use-Receipts under agreements for provision of bandwidth not royalty-Use or right to use-DTAA-India-Singapore.[S.90(2),260A, Art.3(2), 12(3)]

Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj v. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi (2024) 297 Taxman 143/337 CTR 978 /467 ITR 547 /236 DTR 281 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Non-speaking order – Procedure Cash credits – Un secured loan from Magunta exports – Return showing nil income –Duty of CIT(A) – Duty to give reasons for order – Conclusions were in the nature of ipse dixit and no supporting reasons were discernible – Order of CIT(A) confirming the addition is set aside – Matter remanded to the file of the CIT(A). [ S. 68, 115BBE, 250, Art .226 ]

ACIT v. Eurostar Diamonds India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 205 ITD 324 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-TPO had not proposed any adjustment-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S.92C, 92D]

Play Games 24×7 (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 205 ITD 571/228 TTJ 358 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Winnings from lotteries or crossword puzzles-Online gaming-Winning amount paid to players of games available on its website-Revision is justified for for limited purpose of examining issue of deduction of TDS under section 194B.[S. 194B]

Dharam Pal Saini. v. PCIT (2024) 205 ITD 617 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Urban agricultural land-Capital asset-Liable to be assessed as capital gains-Revision is affirmed. [S. 2(14), 45]