Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sanjay Bhandari v. ITO (2025) 302 Taxman 122 /473 ITR 294 (Delhi) (HC).Editorial : Sanjay Bhandari v. ITO (2025) 303 Taxman 513 (SC), On SLP the Court held that the assessee was to be permitted to raise all contentions legal as well as factual available to him before concerned authority under provisions of Black Money Act, 2015 and relevant contentions were to be considered on their own merits without being influenced by impugned order .

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

S. 51:Pushishment for wilful attempt to evade tax-Return of income-Prosecution under section 51 cannot be dependent on completion of assessment, as offence, if proved, stands completed as soon as conditions as required under section 51(3) are fulfilled, irrespective of return of income-Writ petition to quash the proceeding is dismissed. [S.2(12), 10(1), 48, 51(3), ITACT, 1961, S. 6(6), 131(IA),132, Art. 226]

ACIT v. Ericsson India (P.) Ltd (2024) 302 Taxman 13 (SC) Editorial : Ericsson India (P.) Ltd v. Addl.CIT (2018) 98 taxman.com 395/ (2019) 411 ITR 333(Delhi)(HC)

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Prior to amendment in section 271G by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. from 1-10-2014, TPO had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271G for failure to furnish documents as required by section 92D(3)-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S.92D(3), Art.136]

CIT (TDS) v. Turner General Entertainment Networks India (P.) Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 187 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Action for imposition of penalty is initiated-Penalty proceedings were initiated on receipt of reference on 25-9-2014 and not on issuance of show cause notice on 4-8-2015-Order of penalty passed by Joint Commissioner (TDS) is barred by limitation. [S. 44AD, 260A]

CIT (LTU) v. State Bank of India (2025) 302 Taxman 365 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. State Bank of India (2024) 169 taxmann.com 304 (Karn)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the relevant portion of clause in penalty notice-Order of High Curt deleting the penalty is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 274, Art. 136]

Chavakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 302 Taxman 305 (Ker)(HC)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Delay in obtaining audit reports from statutory auditors under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules-Reasonable cause-Penalty order is quashed.[S.44AB, 273B]

Hemalatha Rajan v. Dy. CIT (2025) 302 Taxman 229 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cash credits-Cash deposit-Demonetisation-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 68, 143 (3), 260A]

CIT v. Genpact Consulting Singapore PTE Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 470(Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Transfer of shares-Capital gains-Colourable device-Dividend distribution tax-Merely recipient of income and was not entity which had either declared or paid dividend, revisionary proceedings were not justified-DTAA-India-Singapore [S. 45, 47(iv), 115-0, 260A, Art. 13]

CIT v. Zebra Technologies Asia Pacific Pet. Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 380 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Commercial substance-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Order of the Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 260A, Art. 12]

CIT v. Embassy Brindavan Developers (2025) 302 Taxman 362 (SC) Editorial : Embassy Brindavan Developers v.CIT (2023) 291 Taxman 188/ 457 ITR 234 (Karn)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital asset-Solitary transaction-Sold without development-Assessing Officer accepted the claim as capital gains-Two plausible view-Order of High Court quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 2(14), 45, Art. 136]

CIT, LTU v. Canara Bank (2025) 302 Taxman 369 (SC) Editorial : CIT, LTU v. Canara Bank (2021) 277 Taxman 215 (Karn)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Order passed by Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Tribunal-Subsequently set aside by High Court-Revision is not valid-Order of High Court is affirmed. [S. 32, 143(3), Art. 136]