S. 12A: Registration-Trust or institution-No satisfactory explanation or reasons for delay in filing application for registration-Contradictory stand-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 10(23C)(iiiad),260A]

S.9(1)(vi): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Sale or supply of software-No transfer of copyright, only copyrighted article supplied-Receipts not liable to tax as royalty under Article 12(3) of India-Singapore DTAA-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S.90, Art. 12(3)]

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Business advance-Utilised for payment of assessee’s personal tax under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, and not for execution of job work; the same was rightly treated as deemed dividend-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.260A].

S. 2(14)(iii): Capital Asset-Agricultural land-Sale of land as agricultural land-AO treated it as capital gain-Only village officer certificate as proof-Failure to produce evidence-Order of Tribunal rejecting the exemption was affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 45, 260A]

S.147A: Reassessment – Constitutional validity – Retrospective amendment – Jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) – Faceless assessment – Section 147A inserted by the Finance Act, 2026, with retrospective effect from 1-4-2021, clarifying that the Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A shall mean an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit – Amendment held unconstitutional and struck down. [ S. 120, 124, 127, 130, 144B, 147, 148 , 148A(b) , 148A(d), 151A , Income -Tax Act , 2025, S. 532,,536(2)(c), ,General Clauses Act, 1897 , S. 5 , Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 265 ]

S.80IA: Industrial undertakings – Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development -Strictures – Construction of roads and other infrastructure works- Concurrent findings of fact – Department failed to establish perversity or application of an erroneous legal test – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for concurrent findings of fact in the absence of a substantial question of law – Departmental appeal dismissed.- The Court observed that departmental appeals under section 260A should not be filed routinely by mechanically framing purported substantial questions of law. The Court observed that the Departmental Authorities should look into these aspects of the matter and take corrective step(s), as may be deemed necessary. Copy was forwarded to the PCIT. [S.80IA(4), 260A.]

S.195: Deduction of tax at source – Payment to non-resident – Acquisition of trademark – Assessee acquired absolute ownership of trademark “Jamawar” from a non-resident for lump-sum consideration – Assessee furnished trademark assignment agreement, proof of ownership, nature of right transferred, valuation details, commercial terms and Tax Residency Certificate of recipient – Payment was for acquisition of a capital asset and not for use of trademark or payment of royalty – Consideration for outright acquisition of trademark being capital gains in the hands of recipient, provisions of section 195 were not attracted – Assessee could not be treated as assessee-in-default under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable – Demand deleted. [S. 5, 9(1)(vi), 201, 201(1A).]

S.68: Cash credits –Strictures – Share capital and Compulsorily Convertible Debentures – Investment of Rs.55 crores by foreign investor companies incorporated in Mauritius and Cyprus – Assessee furnished investment-cum-collaboration agreement, details of foreign inward remittances, audited financial statements of investor companies and other supporting documents – TPO and FT&TR reports did not contain any adverse finding – CIT(A) and Tribunal recorded concurrent findings that investments were genuine and duly explained – Revenue failed to establish that findings were perverse –An Assessing Officer is required to objectively consider the assessee’s reply, pleas and documents, and ignoring such material amounts to a breach of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness – Addition was deleted- Order of Tribunal affirmed.[S.143(3), 260A.]

S.148: Reassessment – Notice issued in the name of non-existent amalgamating company – Amalgamation sanctioned by the Bombay High Court prior to issuance of notice under section 148 – Transferor company had ceased to exist in law – Jurisdictional notice issued against a non-existent entity was invalid – Subsequent participation by the successor company in reassessment proceedings could not confer jurisdiction on Assessing Officer – Defect was jurisdictional and not a mere mistake in description – Section 292B could not validate proceedings initiated against a non-existent person – Reassessment proceedings quashed. [S. 147, 151, 170, 292B.]

S.143(3): Assessment – Business income: Client Code Modification – Alleged shifting of losses through CCM – Mere modification of client code by broker could not establish that resultant loss was fictitious or arranged for tax purposes – Assessee not being a stock-broker could not independently undertake CCM – No material to establish that assessee instructed broker to modify client codes or that any pre-arranged understanding existed – No evidence of exchange of money, cash consideration, commission or other benefit – General investigation regarding misuse of CCM could not automatically be applied to assessee without assessee-specific corroborative material – Suspicion, however strong, could not take the place of evidence – Addition of Rs.1,06,40,281 deleted.[ S.28(i)]