Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 590/469 ITR 269 (SC) Editorial : CIT(IT) v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd (2024) 166 taxmann.com 316 / 469 ITR 267(Karn)(HC)

S. 90 :Double taxation relief-DTAA overrides provisions of section 206AA-Rate of tax to be applied for grossing up should be as per DTAA-Delay of 402 days in filing SLP-Delay is not explained satisfactorily-Delay is not condoned-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 206AA, Art. 136]

Nestle SA v. AO (IT) (2024) 300 Taxman 361/ 341 CTR 320/ 243 DTR 88 (SC) Editorial : AO(IT) v. Nestle SA (2023) 155 taxmann.com 384/ 296 Taxman 580/335 CTR 145/ 231 DTR 113 (SC)

S. 90 :Double taxation relief-Elimination of double taxation-Review petition dismissed against order of Supreme Court that a notification under section 90(1) is a mandatory condition to give effect to a DTAA, or any protocol changing its terms or conditions, which has effect of altering existing provisions of law and thus, for a party to claim benefit of a same treatment clause, based on entry of DTAA between India and another state which is member of OECD, relevant date would be entering into treaty with India and not a later date, when, after entering into DTAA with India, such country becomes an OECD member, in terms of India’s practice-DTAA-India-France [R. 128, Art. 10, 13]

Unicorn Industries v. PCIT (2024) 300 Taxman 347 /(2025) 475 ITR 47 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 80IC : Special category States-Manufacture of pan masala (Mouth freshener)-Pan masala without any tobacco content will not fall within purview of Entry 1 of Part A of Thirteenth Schedule and assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IC(2)(a)(i) read with section 80IC(3). [S.80IC(2)(a), 80IC(3), 260A]

PCIT v. G.K. Developers (2024) 300 Taxman 331 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 80IB (10) : Housing projects-Project was sanctioned prior to 1-4-2005-Concept of built up area was introduced with effect from 1-4-2005 could not be applied retrospectively-Expression built up area would exclude balcony area-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S.80IB(14), 260A]

PCIT v. SVD Resins & Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 503 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Trading in resign and chemicals on whole sale basis-Information from Sales tax Department-Order of Tribunal restricting the addition to 12.5 % of gross profit is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 133(6), 145(3) 260A]

PCIT v. Timblo (P.) Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 343 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Search-Diary-Unexplained general expenses-Legal expenses-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed-No substantial question of law.[S. 132, 153A, 260A]

ACIT v. Kantilal Exports Surat (2024) 300 Taxman 99 (SC) Editorial : ACIT v. Kantilal Exports Surat (2023) 293 Taxman 531/ 454 ITR 112 /332 CTR 610/ 225 DTR 357 (SC) M. Kantilal Exports v. ACIT (2011) 330 ITR 185 (Guj)(HC), reversed.

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Search and seizure-Duplicate account-Yield in various years-Finding reversed relying on statement-Order of Tribunal is restored-Miscellaneous application against the order of Supreme Court is dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 132, 143(3), Art. 136]

Basheera Begum v. Jt. CIT (2024) 300 Taxman 160 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Failure to consider TDS challans-Matter is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer-Directed to pay cost of Rs.15000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.[S. 142(1), 143(3), 147, 148, Art. 226]

CIT v. Sachdeva & Sons (2024) 300 Taxman 211 (P&H)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Export of Rice-Search by Enforcement Directorate-Alleged mis-declaration of value of goods exported-Dropping of proceedings by Enforcement Directorate-Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is affirmed.[S. 148, 260A, FERA]

PCIT v. Simpex Granito (P.) Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 150 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Search-Purchase of raw material-Department and had only assumed undisclosed investment being source of purchases recorded for subsequent sales-Order of Tribunal had rightly deleted addition made by Assessing Officer under section 69C-No substantial question of law. [S.260A]