Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Shital Fibers Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 476 ITR 309/174 taxmann.com 807 /345 CTR 363 / 251 DTR 329 (Three Judges) (SC) Editorial : Associated Capsules Pvt Ltd v.Dy.CIT (2011) 332 ITR 42 (Bom)(HC), approved. ACG Associated Capsules P. Ltd v.CIT(343 ITR 89 (SC), Difference of opinion between two judges, ACIT v. Micro Labs Ltd (2016) 380 ITR 1 (SC), ACIT v. Rogini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15 (Chennai)(SB)(Trib)

S.80IA: Industrial undertakings-Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development-Does not restrict computation of gross total income-Restricts deduction under any other provision under heading C to extent of deduction claimed under section 80IA-The aggregate deduction under section 80IA and other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A do not exceed 100 per cent. of the profits of the business of the assessee, is logical and correct. [S. 4(1), 80AB, 80B(5), 80HHC, 80IA(9), Chap. VI-A.]

PCIT v. Adinath Investment and Training Co. (2025) 476 ITR 35 (P & H) (HC)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses-Investment business-Capital loss-Notional loss-Fall in value of equity shares-Sale of non-convertible debentures-Order of Tribunal allowing loss as carry forward loss not erroneous. [S 10(2A), 260A]

PCIT v. Shree Ganesh Developers (2025) 476 ITR 568 /172 taxmann.com 542//344 CTR 152 / 248 DTR 320 (HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Real estate business-Order of Tribunal was affirmed-Order of Tribunal was reversed in so far as the purchases from the two parties were concerned-However, the total additions should not exceed the total purchases from them.[S. 68, 133(6), 260A]

CIT v. Jaya Publications (2025) 476 ITR 545 /174 taxmann.com 104 (Mad)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Purchase of newsprint-Ad hoc disallowance of 15 per cent. reduced to 5 per cent. by Tribunal-Assessee accepting 5 per cent. Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.37(1), 56, 131, 153(3), 246A, 260A]

PCIT v. Atul Kailashchand Mehta.(2025) 476 ITR 460 (Guj)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Investigation Wing-Restriction of disallowance by Tribunal to 6 per cent. justified.[143(3), 147, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Amit Tarachand Jain (2025) 476 ITR 74 (Guj) (HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Only income component of disputed purchases taxable-Restriction of disallowance by Tribunal to six per cent. justified. [S. 132, 143(3) 147, 260A]

PCIT v. Garg Acrylics Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 737 /305 Taxman 285 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application-Identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors proved-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-Business expenditure-Income taxed twice-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.37(1), 133(6), 133A, 145(3), 260A]

Arasappan Madhivanan v. ITO (2025) 476 ITR 169 / 173 taxmann.com 876 (Mad)(HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Cultivator and grower-Company engaged in pasteurisation not producer of milk-Disallowance was up held-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Principle of noscitur a sociis. [S. 260A, R.6DD(e)(ii)]

Natesan Krishnamurthy v. ITO (2025) 476 ITR 12 /304 Taxman 592 (SC) Editorial : Natesan Krishnamurthy v. ITO (2019) 262 Taxman 127/ 178 DTR 177 / (Mad)(HC)/ (2019) 13 ITR-OL 80 /2019 SCC OnLine Mad 2366)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Purchase of jewellery-Failure to show circumstances that required assessee to effect payments in cash-SLP of assessee dismissed. [R. 6DD, Art. 136]

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2025) 476 ITR 80/ 304 Taxman 285 / 345 CTR 137 / 251 DTR 9 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Commission-Discount-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Disallowance was deleted. [S. 260A]