Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Bently Nevada LLC v. ACIT (IT) (2025) 132 ITR 260 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Non-resident-Permanent establishment-Liaison office treated as permanent establishment in earlier years-Assessee closing liaison office, no expatriate employees, evidence produced-Burden shifting on Revenue to rebut-No material brought by Department despite remand opportunity-No permanent establishment in India-No profits attributable-Royalty-Supply of software embedded in hardware-Facts same as earlier years where addition deleted following Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (SC)-Royalty not taxable-DTAA-India-USA [[S. 9(1)(vii) 144C art.5, 12]

Surana Mutha Bhansali Developers v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 240 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Accrued or contingent liability-Assessee in real estate business-Provision for construction expenses made on fair estimate of amount required for completion of project, following matching concept-Amount spent in subsequent year through proper banking channels, no discrepancies noticed by Revenue-Provision to be allowed.[S. 145]

IBM Global Services India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 217 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 10A : Free trade zone-Export-oriented units-Condition that exports not less than 75% of total sales-“Export turnover” and “total turnover”-Expenses incurred in foreign exchange in providing technical services outside India excluded from both-75% of total sales to be computed on gross receipts. [S. 10A(2)(ia), 80HHC, 80HHE]

DCIT v. Consulting Engineering Services (India) P. Ltd. (2025) 132 ITR 206 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Jurisdictional validity of assessment order in question due to absence of transfer order under section 127-Commissioner (Appeals) passing order without adjudicating jurisdictional issue despite pending High Court directions-Matter restored to file of Commissioner (Appeals). [S. 127, 143(3), 144B]

ITO v. Syamantaka IFMR Capital 2017 (2025) 132 ITR 61(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 194LBC : Deduction of tax at source-Payments to investors in securitisation trust-Excess interest spread paid to originator by assessee, a securitisation trust-Originator not an “investor”-Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 115TCA, 201(1)]

Vivriti Cibus 013 2017 v. ITO (2025) 132 ITR 29(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 194LBC : Deduction of tax at source-Income in respect of investment in securitisation trust-Definitions of “investor” and “securitised debt instrument”-Originator not holding any pass-through certificates of securitisation trust-Where minimum retention requirement commitment is met via other permissible alternative, originator does not hold instrument in securitisation trust and cannot be reckoned as investor-Assessee not “assessee-in-default”. [S. 115TCA, 201(1), 201(1A)]

Sachin Vilas Chaugule v. CIT (2025) 132 ITR 153 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Cash found at assessee’s residence claimed to belong to third party (H group)-H group also claiming the sum and seeking advance tax credit thereof-Same amount cannot be taxed twice-Matter remanded for verification-Income disclosed before Settlement Commission spread year-wise-Petition rejected-Same income taxed again for assessment year 2014-15-Double taxation-Matter remanded for de novo assessment. [S. 132, 132(4), 245D(1)]

DCIT v. DRS Logistics P. Ltd. (2025) 132 ITR 67(Hyd)(Trib.)

S. 147: Reassessment-Condition precedent-Tangible material to reopen assessment-Assessing Officer seeking to verify computation of total income-No new material to show escapement of income-Reassessment not sustainable. [S. 143(3), 148]

Rolls Royce India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 1 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Assessment-Limitation-Assessing Officer required to complete assessment within one month from the end of the month in which directions of Dispute Resolution Panel received-Directions of Panel dated 21-9-2021-Final order passed on 18-11-2021, after due date of 31-10-2021-Time-barred-Final assessment order void ab initio. [S. 92CA(3), 92CA(5), 144C(5), 144C(13)]

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd. (formerly known as Cadbury Ltd.) v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 83 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Advertising, marketing and promotion expenses-No agreement with associated enterprise to share/reimburse expenses-Not an international transaction-Addition not justified.-Royalty for trademark separate from royalty for technology-Cannot be clubbed-Adjustment on royalty for technology deleted-Arms length price-To be determined only by one of five prescribed methods-Ad hoc estimation of salary and man-hours not permissible-Adjustment deleted-Income-Disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income-Sufficient own funds available-No disallowance warranted-Direct/indirect expenses remitted for verification-Business loss-Foreign exchange loss on forward contracts terminated by bank on/after maturity, not prematurely cancelled by assessee-Integral to export of goods-Allowable as business loss-Special deduction-Allocation of operating and establishment expenses on ratio of unit’s revenue to total revenue-Method consistently accepted in earlier years-Deduction allowable-Interest-No delay in filing return-No interest under section 234A-Interest under section 234C levied on assessed income instead of returned income-Matter remitted for recomputation. [S. 14A, R. 8D, 28(i),80IC, 234A, 234C]