Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT (IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 402 (SC) Editorial: CIT (IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd (2024) 159 taxmann.com 278 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Revenue from software sales to Indian clients, said revenue could not be treated as royalty and subjected to Indian taxation-DTAA-India-USA [S.9(1)(vii), 195, art. 12, Art.136]

Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Co. v. CIT (IT) (2024) 469 ITR 31/ 301 Taxman 392 (SC) Editorial: Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Company v. CIT (2024) 299 Taxman 334 /465 ITR 649 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(v) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Interest-Other income-Guarantee to various banks to extend credit facilities to its Indian subsidiaries-Guarantee charges were not received by assessee in respect of any debt owed to it by its Indian subsidiary-Guarantee fee would not fall within expression ‘interest’ in article 12 of India UK DTAA –Accrue-Arise-Income-SLP of assessee is dismissed-DTAA-India-UK-Northern Ireland / [S. 2(28A), 5(2), 260A, Art.7, 12(5), 23(3), Art. 136]

KEC International Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom)(HC)(www.itatonline.org

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Book profit – Decapitalization of interest- Failure of Assessing Officer to examine computation of book profits – Order of Tribunal affirming the revision order of Commissioner is affirmed . [S. 32AB, 115J, 260A]

Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd v. CIT ( Bom)( HC) .www.itatonline.org .

S. 271(1): Penalty – Concealment – Revaluing the asset, introducing it into the partnership, and withdrawing substantial funds, amounted to a device to evade tax rather than a genuine business transaction- The Explanation offered by the Appellant was found to be patently false – Levy of concealment penalty is affirmed . [ S.260A ]

Maya K. Dharwani. (Smt.) v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 77 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of claim-Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Tribunal in quantum appeal partially allowed deduction under section 54F, Assessing Officer is directed to recompute quantum of penalty. [S. 54EC, 54F]

American Express (India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 564 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Corporate social responsibility (CSR)-Allowed deduction under Section 80G-AO’s view is backed by various decisions of Tribunal-Assessment order can not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.[S.37(1), 80G, 143(3), Companies Act, S. 135]

Suresh Kantilal Thakkar. v. PCIT (2024) 208 ITD 395/232 TTJ 659 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Penny stock-Failure to make enquires-Revision is held to be valid.[S. 45, 147, 148]

Rajesh Kumar Jalan v. PCIT (2024) 113 ITR 188 / 208 ITD 349 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Proposal sent by Additional CIT-No independent application of mind-Revision order is quashed. [S.44AD, 68 143(3)]

Jagjeet Singh v. DCIT (2024) 208 ITD 250 (Amritsar) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Search and seizure-Cash credits-Entries of unsecured loans-Failure to make necessary enquiries in reassessment proceedings-Assessment order is invalid-Revision order is invalid.[S. 68, 147, 153C]

Hotel Babylon Continental (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 208 ITD 1 (Raipur) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposits-Share capital-share premium-Reassessment-Limitation-Relevant date for purpose of determination of period of limitation-Date of original assessment order and not date of reassessment order-Revision order is quashed.[S. 68, 147 148]