Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


International Resources for Fairer Trade v. UOI (2025) 307 Taxman 641 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Delay of 1290 days in uploading to the portal-Oversight on the part of the chartered accountant-Delay was condoned-CIT(E) was directed to grant the relief.[S. 12A, Form No 10B, Art. 226]

CIT (E) v. Khurja Development Authority (2025) 307 Taxman 382 (SC) Editorial : CIT (E) v. Khurja Development Authority (All)(HC), (ITA No. 550 of 2008 dt 12-1-2015, 154 of 2015 dt. 7-1-2019)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Registration-Matter remanded to the High Court for reconsideration [S. 2(15), 12 Art, 136]

CIT v. ICSA (India) Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 387 (SC)

S. 10A: Free trade zone-Liquidation-Matter remanded to avail appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law. [Art. 136]

Dy. CIT (IT) v. Orange (2025) 307 Taxman 616 (SC) Editorial : Dy. CIT (IT) v. Orange (2025) 180 taxmann.com 108 (Karn)(HC).

S. 9(1)(vi): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Telecom or transmission services-Interconnect service charges paid to a non-resident telecom operator-Not royalty-Not liable to deduct tax at source-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay of 256 days as also on merits. [Art. 136]

Dy. CIT (IT) v. Orange (2025) 307 Taxman 526 (SC) Editorial : Dy. CIT(IT) v. Orange 78 Rue Olivairer De Serris (France) (2025) 179 taxmann.com 82 (Karn)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Telecom or transmission services-Interconnect service charges paid to a non-resident telecom operator-Not royalty-Not liable to deduct tax at source-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay of 240 and 249 days, as also on merits. [Art. 136]

Atlantic Shipping (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2025) 307 Taxman 469(2026) 485 ITR 717 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Shipping agent-Benefit of Article 8 of DTAA to profits derived from operation of ships in international traffic at Indian ports would be governed by Article 8 and not Article 24-Tribunal could not have been restored to Assessing Officer to give a second inning to Revenue to verify certificate issued way back in 2013-Order of Tribunal set aside-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 172(3), 254(1), Art, 8,24, Art. 226]

Prakash Bhaguji Katkade v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org .

S. 69A: Unexplained money – Alleged on-money paid for purchase of flat – Addition based solely on statements of builder Cosmos Group and unverified Excel sheets seized during search – No incriminating material supplied to assessee – No opportunity of cross-examination – Addition deleted. [S. 132(4), 147, 148, 254(1)]

Paaneri Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( www.itatonline.org

S. 68: Cash credits – Cash deposits during demonetisation – Addition cannot be made merely because cash-in-hand as on 08.11.2016 was substantially higher than the preceding year when books of account were not rejected, sales were duly recorded, supported by stock records and accepted in VAT returns. Cash deposits out of recorded business receipts cannot be treated as unexplained money on suspicion alone. [S. 69A , 145(3)]

Mahesh Gautam v. CIT (2025) 307 Taxman 207 (All.)(HC)

S. 282: Service of notice-Income tax Appellate Tribunal-Speed post-Registered post-Envelope containing notice under section 148 was not returned back-Service of notice through personal service as specified by Order V rule 17 of CPC and Part II of section 282(i) was not validly made-The service of notice through the Income Tax Inspector was also not made upon the appellant by affixing the same on the address of the assessee in absence of personal service upon the assessee-Order passed by Tribunal is set aside-Interpretation of statutes: Rule of strict interpretation.[S. 142(1), 144, 147, 148, 254(1), 260A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order V rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Post Office Act, 2023, the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, the Post Office Rules, 2024, R. 2(1)(k), 58, 60, 62, General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 27, Indian Evidence Act 1872, S.114(f)]

Brijesh M. v. ITO (2025) 307 Taxman 91 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 281B: Provisional attachment-Provisional attachment order dated 1-6-2017 was valid for a period of six months as per section 281B(2) until 1-12-2017, and in the absence of any extension, the order ceased to have effect thereafter. [Art. 226]