Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


DIT (IT) v American Express Bank Ltd. (2026) 484 ITR 137/ 308 Taxman 246 / 348 CTR 38 / 256 DTR 497 (SC) DIT(IT) v. Oman International Bank S.A. O.G (Now Doha Bank) 2026) 484 ITR 137/ 308 Taxman 246 / 348 CTR 38 / 256 DTR 497 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 55/[2004] 134 Taxman 682 (Bom) (HC) disapproved. DIT (IT) v. American Express Bank Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1294 of 2013, dated 1-4-2015(Bom)(HC) set aside.

S. 44C: Non-residents-Head office expenditure-Broad and inclusive-No indication that “exclusive expenditure”-expenditure exclusively incurred for branch in India, to be excluded from its ambit-“Attributable to”-Encompasses both shared expenses allocated to India branches and exclusive expenses incurred for India branches-Expense was common expense or exclusively for Indian branch not material so long as expense incurred for business or profession-Allowable as deduction-Expenditure incurred outside India-Authorities have not recorded factual finding-Matters remanded to the Tribunal-“Attributable”-“Exclusive”-“Attributable to”-“Derived from”-Interpretation of taxing statues-Strict interpretation-DTAA-India-United States of America. [S.37(1), Art. 7(3),]

CIT v. India Cements Ltd [2025] 180 taxmann.com 564 / (2026) 484 ITR 30 (Mad)(HC)

S. 41(1): Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Sales tax liability treated as a loan under State Government Scheme-Liability assigned to another party at net present value of sum payable after twelve years-Not cessation of liability-Entire liability to pay stood discharged on assignment. [S. 260A]

Sharp Business System v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 496 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial : Reversed in Sharp Business System (Through Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno) v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 509 // 308 Taxman 285 (SC)

S.37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Compete fees paid to keep erstwhile partner from doing competing business for seven years. Arrangement to endure for a substantial period, i.e., seven years certain position in the market by keeping the erstwhile partner out-Payment was Capital expenditure.

CIT v. India Cements Ltd [2025] 180 taxmann.com 564 / (2026) 484 ITR 30 (Mad)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Payment to employees under voluntary retirement scheme-Revenue expenditure-Advertisement of newly launched products-Tribunal restricting allowance to 10 per cent. Of claim-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 260A]

CIT v. Sahara Asset Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2026) 484 ITR 625/ 183 taxmann.com 235 (Mad)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Commercial expediency-Mutual fund-Fund manager-Assessing Officer cannot put himself in the armchair of the assessee and decide whether to incur expenses or not-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 260A]

Sharp Business System (Through Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno) v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 509 /308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 / 257 DTR 49 (SC) Dy.CIT v. Pentamedia Graphics Ltd (2026) 484 ITR 509 /308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 / 257 DTR 49 (SC) PCIT v. Piramal Glass Ltd (2026) 484 ITR 509 /308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 / 257 DTR 49 (SC) CIT v. Penatsoft Technolgies Ltd (2026) 484 ITR 509 /308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 / 257 DTR 49 (SC) Editorial : Sharp Business System v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 496 (Delhi) (HC) / Sharp Business System v. CIT [2012] 254 CTR 233/211 Taxman 576 (Delhi (HC) set aside. The court remanded the remaining appeals to the repective Tribunals to be heard afresh, having regard to the ratio laid down as per para 32 of the Judgement.

S. 37(1): Business expenditure –Capital or revenue-Advantage for enduring benefit-Non-compete fee –No monopoly achieved-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

National Co-Operative Development Corporation v. ACIT (2026) 484 ITR 193/308 Taxman 168 (SC) Editorial : National Co-Operative Development Corporation v. ACIT(2013) 356 ITR 184 (Delhi)(HC), affirmed.

S. 36(1)(viii) : Eligible business-Special reserve-Forty per cent. of “profits derived from such business of providing long-term finance”-Amendment brought by Finance Act, 1995-Concept of an integrated business cannot be invoked to expand scope of benefit to cover income not strictly satisfying definition-Dividend does not qualify as profits derived from business of providing long-term finance or loans Not eligible for deduction-Interest earned from bank deposits attributable to business, but not derived from activity of providing long-term finance-Not eligible for deduction-Service charges received for Sugar Development Fund loans Funds belonged to Government of India-Receipts were charges paid by Government for administrative tasks of monitoring and disbursement Proximate source was agency agreement with Government, not lending activity-Could not be equated with “profits derived from business of providing long-term finance” Not eligible for deduction-“Derived from”-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Strict interpretation-Precedent-Judgment based on old, broader law cannot be used to interpret new, stricter provision.[S.80IB, Art. 136]

Sharp Business System (Through Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno) v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 509/308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 / 257 DTR 49 (SC) Editorial : Sharp Business System v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 496 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 36(1)(iii): Interest on borrowed capital-Advance to subsidiary-investment made for acquiring controlling interest in associate concern-Commercial expediency-Allowable as deduction.

Sharp Business System v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 496 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial : Sharp Business System (Through Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno) v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 509/ 308 Taxman 285 (SC), allowed as revenue expenditure.

S. 32 : Depreciation-Intangible asset-Non-compete agreement-Right in personam-Not an intangible asset-Depreciation not allowable on non-compete fees.[S. 32(1)(ii)]

Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Nalwa Investment Ltd (2020) 427 ITR 229 (Delhi)(HC), affirmed.

S. 28(i) : Business income-Capital gains-Two provisions operate in distinct and independent fields-Mere receipt not sufficient to attract charge Commercial realisability required-Shares received on amalgamation-Shares held as stock-in-trade Nature of stock-in-trade wholly different from investment-No exception contemplated in case of business assets-Shares received on amalgamation-Shares held as stock-in-trade-Profit taxable as business profits-Burden on department to establish and Tribunal to apply the principles to evidence on record-Charge attracted only upon allotment of new shares-Not on appointed date or date of court sanction. [S. 2(1B), 2(14), 2(47), 28, 45(1), 47(vii) Art. 136]