Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Dy.CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 603 / (2026) 487 ITR 670 (Mad)(HC)

S. 44: Insurance business-Profit on sale of investment by insurance company is not taxable in India. Provisions of section 14A do not apply to insurance companies, because in framing of assessments in case of insurance companies, it is purely section 44 read with rule 5 of First Schedule that would apply.[S.14A]

Ronak Ceramics Industries Ltd v. ACIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 538 /[2026] 487 ITR 310 (Guj)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Maintained two sets of accounts-loose papers-Order of Tribunal affirming the disallowance was affirmed. [S. 260A]

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Dy.CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 603 / (2026) 487 ITR 670 (Mad)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-IBNR and IBNER provisions created by the assessee, insurance company, in accordance with regulatory requirements of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) are ascertained contingent liabilities and hence allowable deduction-Services rendered-Matter remanded-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 145]

Ronak Ceramics Industries Ltd v. Asst. CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 538 / (2026) 487 ITR 310 (Guj)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Search-Loose papers-Tribunal restoring order of Assessing Officer disallowing expenditure on account of “debtors” found in loose papers-Order of Tribunal affirmed.[S. 132, 260A]

Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. v CIT(2025] 177 taxmann.com 213 / (2026) 487 ITR 25 (Bom)(HC)

S.32AB: Investment deposit account-Computation of profit-Benefit Computation to be in accordance with the provisions of company law and not under the 1961 Act-Additional sugarcane price paid after year-end not deductible as expenditure while considering profits for purpose of grant of benefit under section 32AB-Order of Tribunal was set aside. [Companies Act, 1956, Sch. VI, Parts II, III.]

Kalanjiam Development Financial Services v. ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1108 / (2026) 487 ITR 236 (Mad)(HC)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Micro finance services-Raising loans from commercial banks and charging processing fees on amount lent-Not entitled to exemption merely by obtaining registration under section 12AA and certificate under section 80G(5)(vi).[S.2(15), 11, 12, 80G(5)(vi), 260A]

Ramswaroop Das Niranjanlal Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 590 / (2026) 487 ITR 204 (Chhattgarh)(HC)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Dharamshala to facilitate relief to poor people, orphans, widows, and old-aged persons-Charitable in nature. [S. 2(15), 13(8), 143(2), 260A]

CIT (IT) v. Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GMBH [2025] 174 taxmann.com 77 / (2026) 487 ITR 267 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : CIT(IT) v. Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GMBH [2026] 312 Taxman 449 (SC), SLP of revenue dismissed.

S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-Commission-Required to promote, sell and distribute books and journals published by group company in print and electronic form-Not performing any executive or supervisory functions or rendering managerial services-No special skills or knowledge its personnel were required to possess to render services under the commissionaire agreement-Services rendered by assessee were not technical services and commission received not fees for technical services-Collecting subscription fees from various customers for subscribing to journals and books-Finding that content was standardised and not specifically collected or generated for any particular entity-Subscription fees not “fees for technical service”-Mere access to technical database or technical literature or sale of technical texts, information or research material collated by extensive research would not constitute rendering technical services [S. 9(1)(vii), Expln. 2.]

University of Mumbai v. ITO (E) (Mum)( Trib) [www.itatonline.org].

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution- Exemption – University wholly or substantially financed by Government – Grants received through UGC and capital grant in the form of land to be considered for determining 50 per cent threshold under Rule 2BBB – Exemption allowable –Quantum deleted- Penalty will not survive. [ S. 10(23C(iiiab ) ,270A, Rule 2BBB ]

ARL Infratech Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2026) 310 Taxman 338 (Raj)(HC)

S. 281B: Provisional attachment-Draconian provision; the minimum requirement is to afford an opportunity to the assessee to make payment in terms of CBDT Office Memorandums, and no presumption can be drawn that the assessee would not make payment-The attachment order was set aside with direction to the assessee to deposit 20 per cent of provisionally assessed demand within one week. [Art.226]