Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm v. CIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 308/ 347 CTR 504 / 254 DTR 73 (Bom)(HC)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Dead horses-Capital assets-Insurance claim-Capital receipts cannot be assessed under section 41(1) of the Act.[S.45]

PCIT v. Eygbs (India) (P) Ltd. (2025) 180 taxmann.com 681 / 347 CTR 280 / 254 DTR 385 (Karn)(HC)

S.14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Investments made and liquidated within year resulting in no opening or closing balances-Order of Tribunal deleting the ad hoc disallowance under section 14A at 10 percent of exempt income was affirmed. [S. 260A, R.8D]

Doma T. Bhutia v. UOI (2025) 347 CTR 114 / 307 Taxman 4 (SC) Editorial :affirmed, Dr. Doma T. Bhutia v. UOI (2025) 343 CTR 652 / 172 taxxmmann.com 293 (Sikkim)(HC)

S. 10(26AAA): Income of Sikkimese-Individual-Constitutional validity-—Expression “Sikkimese” has been defined only for the purpose of the Explanation to S. 10(26AAA)-Order of High Court dismissing the petition affirmed. [Art. 136, 271F(k)]

CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2025) 305 Taxman 4 / 347 CTR 109 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(IT Appeal No. 250 of 2005 dt. 7-12-2017) (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Sales tax exemption from State Government-Subsidy held to be capital receipt, and High Court order on that issue affirmed-Income accrual-Duty drawback-Income does not accrue merely on export; Tribunal was justified in remanding matter for limited verification whether claim was accepted by authorities in relevant year-High Court erred in interfering with remand-Tribunal’s order restored.[S. 5, Art. 136]

Dy. Director of Income-tax (BPU Unity) v. Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (2025) 305 Taxman 418 (SC) Editorial : Dy. Director of Income-tax (BPU Unity) v. Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (2025)174 taxxmann.com 693 (SC) affirmed, Governrmrnt of NCT of Delhi v.K.L. Rathu Steels Ltd (2024) 7 SCC 315, followed.

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 2(8) : Benami property-Authorities concerned could not initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to coming into force of 2016 Act viz. 25-10-2016-SLP dismissed-Review petition is also dismissed. [S. 3, 5, Art. 136]

PCIT (Central) v. Garg Acrylic Ltd. (2025) 305 Taxman 91 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Unexplained expenditure-Accommodation entries-Tax effect was below ₹2 crores threshold as stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17-09-2024-Appeal dismissed. [S. 69C, 260A]

Kalkajee Kraft Paper (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, ITD (2025) 305 Taxman 261 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 292BB : Notice of demand to be valid in certain circumstances-Notice under section 142(1) at its email ID-notices were sent to assessee at email address as available at website of MCA-Participated in inquiry relating to assessment-Precluded from raising any objection that notice was not served or was served in an improper manner-The provisions of section 292BB would be applicable-Petition was dismissed. [S. 142(1), 143(3), 282(2), ITATRules,127, Art. 226]

ITO v. MKY Constructions (P.) Ltd. (2025) 305 Taxman 507 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 278AA : Offences and prosecutions-Reasonable cause-For failure to deposit TDS-No punishment-Order of the Trial Court acquitted the respondents primarily on the ground that the respondents had satisfactorily demonstrated the existence of a ‘reasonable cause’ for the delay in depositing TDS, within the meaning of section 278AA-High Court affirmed. [S.201(IA), 234E, 276B, 278E, 279 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 378(4)]

Arjun Amarjeet Rampal v. Income-tax Department (2025) 305 Taxman 384 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Willful attempt to evade tax-Bailable nature-Magistrate had mechanically passed order issuing non-bailable warrant against petitioner in a bailable offence-Order was quashed and set aside. [S. 276(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 428, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 S. 528]

Sandeep Kaur Gill v. UOI (2025) 305 Taxman 223 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

S. 271E : Penalty-Repayment of loan or deposit-Reasonable cause had been shown by assessee for non-compliance with provisions contained in section 269T and transaction was genuine and bona fide, assessee was not liable to pay penalty under section 271E for non-compliance of section 269T. [S. 269T, 273B]