Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


DIT v. Travelport Inc. (2023) 454 ITR 289 / 293 Taxman 439 / 332 CTR 480 / 225 CTR 201 (SC)/ Galieo International Inc ; DIT v. (2023)454 ITR 289/ 293 Taxman 439/ 332 CTR 480/ 225 CTR 201 (SC) Editorial: Decision of the Delhi High Court in DIT v. Galileo International Inc. (2011) 336 ITR 264 (Delhi)(HC), Galileo Netherland BV. V.ADIT (IT) 2014) 367 ITR 319 (Delhi)(HC), affirmed.

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent Establishment-Portion of income reasonably attributable to operations in India-Question of fact-Tribunal attributing 15 Per Cent. of total revenues as income accruing or arising in India on basis of functions performed, assets used and risks-Commission paid to distribution agents more than twice this amount and taxed-No further income taxable in India-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(i ),n Explanation 1(a), Art. 7]

PCIT v. Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 202 / (2024) 337 CTR 615(Gauhati)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Interest-Short term deposits-Funds placed with banks during period of construction of project-Interest earned is capital in nature. [S. 28(i), 145, 260A]

CIT v. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 808 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 237 (Guj)(HC), affirmed. CIT v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd (2017) 10 ITR-OL 275 (Guj)(HC), affirmed.

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Sales tax exemption-Scheme requiring recipient of benefit to utilise substantial portion of subsidy for capital purposes-Capital receipt. [S. 28(i)]

Aachman Marketing (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2023] 294 Taxman 737 (Cal)(HC)

S. 24 : Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction–Benami Property-Provisional Attachment-Show cause notice-Writ petition against show cause notice is dismissed-Directed to file the reply-Time to file reply is extended by a period of two weeks. [S. 24(1), Art. 226]

M. Kumudhavalli v. Initiating Officer Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) (2023) 294 Taxman 633 /(2024) 460 ITR 43(Mad)(HC)

S. 24 : Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction–Benami Property-Provisional Attachment-Sufficient material-The Assessee was advised to approach the adjudicating officer to explain why the provisional attachment order is bad in law. [S. 24(1), Art. 226]

ACIT (Initiating Officer) v. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 580/ 294 Taxman 262 (SC) Editorial : Neopride Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Adjudicating Authority (2023) 454 ITR 571 / 152 taxmann.com 343 (Telengana)(HC), affirmed.

S. 24(1) : Benami transactions-Transactions prior to amendment in 2016-Notices, orders for provisional attachment and adjudicating orders are set aside-Oder of High Court affirmed. [S. 4(a)(i) 26(3) Art. 136]

Parmod Kumar Jain v. Satish Jain (2023) 294 Taxman 673 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 2(9) : Benami Transactions-Prohibition of benami transactions-Prohibition of right to recover property held benami-Co-owner-25 percent share in suit property. [S. 3.(2), The Civil Procedure Code 1908, Order VII Rule 11 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 340]

ACIT v. Nexus Feeds Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 459/ 294 Taxman 438 (SC) Editorial: Nexus Feeds Ltd v. ACIT (2022) 444 ITR 261 / 137 taxmann.com 261 (Telengana)(HC)

S. 2(9) : Benami transaction-Amendment of Act in 2016 Provisions are substantive-Not applicable with retrospective effect-Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law, but no such right exists in procedural law-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Rule against retrospectivity-Transactions prior to amendment in 2016-Notices, orders for provisional attachment and adjudicating orders are set aside-Oder of High Court affirmed. [S. 2(9)(A) (2(9)(C), 4(a)(i), 24(3) 26(3), Art. Art.20 136]

CIT (IT) v. Gracemac Corporation (2023) 456 ITR 135 / 294 Taxman 708(SC)

Interpretation of Taxing statute-Binding precedent-Decision rendered following earlier decision – Subsequent overruling of earlier decision does not revive judgment passed earlier.

PCIT v. Kamla Chandrasingh Kabali (2023) 294 Taxman 608 (SC) Editorial : Kamla Chandrasingh Kabali v. PCIT (2022) 443 ITR 148/ 286 Taxman 580 (Bom)(HC)

Income Declaration Scheme, 2016-Finnace Act, 2016 (2016) 384 ITR 87 (St)
S. 184 : Charge of tax and surcharge-Advance tax-Payment of tax-Credit for advance tax-Credit for advance tax must be given-Directed the respondents to issue certificate as required by Rule 4(5)-Notice issued in SLP filed by the Revenue.. [S. 183, 185 ITACT, S.199, 219 Art. 226]