Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Kaushal Kishore Agarwal v. ITO (2024)463 ITR 683 (Raj)(HC)

S. 80HHC : Export business-Profits-Interest earned on deposits and advances not entitled to deduction. [S.260A]

CIT (E) v. Gangadeen Niranjan Lal Data Charitable Trust (2024) 463 ITR 690 (Raj)(HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed, leaving question of law open. CIT (E) v. Gangadeen Niranjan Lal Data Charitable Trust (2024) 297 Taxman 294/463 ITR 695 (SC)

S. 80G : Donation-Application for approval of institution-Genuineness of activities are not in doubt-Quantum of charitable activities cannot be the basis for granting approval-Order of Tribunal directing to grant the approval is affirmed. [S.80G(5). R.11AA]

PCIT v. Narsingh Ispat Ltd. (2024)463 ITR 566 (Cal)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application money-Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction established-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed.[S. 260A]

CIT v. Mayank Service Ltd [2024] 463 ITR 119 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application money-Test of creditworthiness and genuineness failed to prove-Addition is affirmed.[S.260A]

CIT v. Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd. (2024)463 ITR 335/337 CTR 889 / 159 taxmann.com 539 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Non-Resident had no Permanent Establishment in India-Non-discrimination clause in Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement applicable-Disallowance is not justified-Provisions of agreement more beneficial to assessee is applicable-DTAA-India-Japan-United States of America.[S.9O, 195, art. 24(3), 26(3)]

CIT v. Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd. [2024] 463 ITR 329 / [2021] 124 taxmann.com 431 (Karn) (HC) Editorial: SLP of the Revenue is dismissed, CIT v. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd (2024) 463 ITR 334 / 161 taxmann.com 46 (SC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Intangible Assets-Goodwill-Amalgamation-The order of the Tribunal allowing the depreciation claim of the assessee was upheld by the High Court. [S. 32(1)(ii)]

Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (E) [2024] 463 ITR 560/ / 160 taxmann.com 629 /338 CTR 479 (P& H) (HC)

S. 12A : Registration-Trust or institution-Method and manner of service of notice under statutory provisions-Notice and reminders issued by CIT(E) were reflected only on portal and not sent to the assessee at its registered email address-Order passed was set aside holding that before any action is taken, a communication of notice must be in terms of provisions of section 282 and rules made thereunder [S. 12A(1)(ac)(ii), 282, Rule 127, Art. 226]

Serum Institute of India (P.) Ltd. v UOI [2024] 463 ITR 582 /336 CTR 6 (Bom)(HC)

S. 2(24)(xviii) : Income-Assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement-Incentive-Subsidies-Capital or revenue-Constitutional validity of insertion of sub-clause (xviii) of the Finance Act, 2015 which brought subsidies, all forms of incentives given by Government under the ambit of taxable income-The Amendment was constitutionally valid-The mere fact that the institution of tax by virtue of the impugned sub-clause falls more heavily on petitioner cannot result in its invalidity-Court Cannot Substitute Legislative Judgment of Economic Policies. [S. 4, Art. 12, 14, 19, 226, 246, 265, 289]

S.S. Hyderabad Biriyanai (P.) Ltd v. Dy. DIT (Inv) (2024) 298 Taxman 198/ 160 taxmann.com 418/465 ITR 410 (SC) Editoorial : S.S. Hyderabad Biriyanai (P.) Ltd v. Dy. DIT (Inv) (2024) 160 taxmann.com 417 (Mad)(HC)

S. 277 : Offences and prosecutions-False statement-Verification-Prosecution was launched two years prior to date of filing of application before Settlement Commission-Pending of prosecution was not brought to the notice of Settlement Commission-Provision of section 245I is not applicable-Proceedings canot be quashed-SLP of assessee is dismissed.[S. 245C, 245I, Art. 136]

Hansa Metallics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 298 Taxman 67 (P&H)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Willful attempt to evade tax-Paid self assessment tax with interest-Delayed payment of income tax would not amount to evasion of tax, there was no evasion of tax on part of assessee-company though there was a delay in payment of tax for which interest was paid-Prosecution launched is quashed. [S.140A(3), 276(2), 278B, Art. 226]