Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


P. Kavin & Company v. PCIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 909/ 347 CTR 401 / 255 DTR 345/ (2026) 484 ITR 414 (Guj)(HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Belated revised return of income-Condonation of delay—Reasonable cause-Mistake by chartered accountant—Rectify error in Tax Audit Report pertaining to due date of payment of employees contribution to PF/ESI-Incorrect dates in Form 3CD–On writ thee Court held that Principal Commissioner ought to have condoned delay in filing return of income by assessee.[S 36(1)(va), 43B, 119(2(b). Form No 3CD, Art. 226]

Delhi Maharashtriya Educational & Cultural Society v. CIT (E)(2025) /307 Taxman 448/ 347 CTR 193 / 255 DTR 193 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Audit report in Form 10B could not be uploaded with return due to inadvertent error of auditor-Delay was bona fide-Delay was condoned-Commissioner was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. [S. 12A, 139,119(2)(b), 143(1), 154, Form 10B, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Eygbs (India) (P) Ltd. (2025) 180 taxmann.com 681 / 347 CTR 280 / 254 DTR 385 (Karn)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-SEZ unit-Assessing Officer could not deny section 10AA exemption on portion of income relating to these TP adjustments, since income was not enhanced by Assessing Officer and conditions of section 92C(4) proviso were not attracted.[S.10AA, 92C(4), 260A]

Modi Builders & Realtors (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 305 Taxman 277/347 CTR 176 / 255 DTR 37 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Bunglows which were duplexes surrendered by copaund wall-Portico and open terarace-Open terrace and portico was an area which was otherwise totally open and exposed and could not be brought within purview of inner measurement of residential unit-Two areas had to be excluded from computation of built-up area entitling assessee to benefit under section 80IB(10) of the Act. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Nahar Enterprises (Bom)(HC) (2025) 176 taxmann.com 570 / 347 CTR 97 / 255 DTR 25 (Bom)(HC)

S. 80-IB(10) : Housing project-Built-up area-Flower bed area, being below floor level, open to sky, outside residential unit and not habitable, cannot be included in “built-up area”-Cupboard projections already forming part of wall area, service area being common utility duct area, and window projections at sill level being unsafe/elevational features also not includible-Tribunal justified in directing allowance of deduction under section 80-IB(10)-Order affirmed. [S. 80-IB(14)(a), 260A]

Sunita Sherwani v. ITO (2025) 177 taxmann.com 437/ 347 CTR 408 / 255 DTR 161 (Chattisgarh)(HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Income form undisclosed sources—Cash deposits in bank account-Demonetisation period—Bank account statement of last three financial years and return of her income for last six financial years-Allowing the appeal the Court held that the Assessing Officer ought to have been verified in terms of clauses 1.1 and 1.3 of CBDT Circular No. 3, dated 21-2-2017 before making addition,-Matter was remitted back to Assessing Officer to conduct verification and pass an order afresh. [S. 254(1), 260A]

Snerea Properties (P) Ltd. v ACIT (2025) 347 CTR 722 / 254 DTR 165 / 306 Taxman 126 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Shares-Sale of property-DVO’s report estimating market value of property that was neither sold nor transferred by assessee-Incidence of tax, if any, would be confined to transacting parties-Addition affirmed by the Tribunal deleted.[S. 260A]

George Stanley v. DCIT (IT) (2025) 178 taxmann.com 187 / 347 CTR 299 / 255 DTR 57 (Ker)(HC)

S.54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Agricultural land-Capital asset-Even if claim was not made in return-The Assessing Officer cannot reject the claim on technical ground-Matter remanded-Assessee had not adduced any evidence to prove agricultural activity and documents of Sub-Registrar’s office where sale deed was registered did not contain any endorsement as regards nature of property to be agricultural-Denial of exemption affirmed. [S. 2(14), 10 (37), 45, 260A]

Narendra I. Bhuva v. ACIT (2025) 177 taxmann.com 540 /347 CTR 549 (Bom)(HC)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Capital asset—Personal effects-Vintage car— Failed to provide evidence proving personal use of vintage car-Gain taxable as capital gains.[S. 2(14)]

Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. ADIT (2025) 347 CTR 890 / 254 DTR 217 /177 taxmann.com 734 (Mad)(HC)

S. 44AB : Audit of accounts-Business-Profession-Digital marketing—Digital marketing cannot be treated as profession-It should be treated as business—Turnover below 5 crores-Assessee was not therefore liable to file audit report in terms of proviso to s. 44AB(a).[S.28(i), Art. 226]