Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Ghanshyam Anil Dhanani v. ITO (2025) 482 ITR 1010 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Death of assessee-Department not informed of death of assessee-Legal heir deemed to be assessee-Directed to respond to notice under section 142(1)-Assessing Officer directed to issue subsequent notices in name of legal heir.[S. 142(1), 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

CIT (E). v Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences (2025) 482 ITR 1004 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Hospital or medical institution Grand-in-aid from Government Effect of section 10(23C) (iiiac)-Interest on grants-in-aid-To be added to grants-in-aid or returned to Government-Interest entitled to exemption [S. 10(23C) (iiiac).]

PCIT v. Mahle Behr India Ltd. (formerly known as Behr India Ltd.) (2025) 482 ITR 1000(Bom)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Tribunal holding transfer pricing to be proportionate to value of international transaction-Business expenditure-Provision for warranty-Tribunal deleting disallowance Proper-No substantial question of law. [S.37(1), 260A]

Sylvesa Infotech Pvt. Ltd.v. NFAC (2025) 482 ITR 996 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-UOI v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) Notice under section 148 deemed to be issued under section 148A-Assessee has right to reply to notice.[S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), Art.226]

Saturday Club Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 482 ITR 990 (Cal)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Principles of mutual association-Matter remanded. [S. 260A]

Deep Drilling 1 Pte. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 482 ITR 982 (Bom)(HC)

S. 44BB : Mineral oils-Computation-Presumptive tax-Non resident-Taxability in India-Undertaken for 119 days-Less than 183 days-No permanent establishment in India-Not taxable in India-DTAA-India-Singapore [Art. 51, Art.226.]

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (2025) 482 ITR 966 (Bom)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts or new tangible material available-Payments under settlement with on-site employees in class action law suit in United States of America-Reassessment to disallow deduction on ground that amount expended was penalty-Payment not in nature of penalty-Reassessment not sustainable.[S. 37(1), 148, Art. 226]

Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 482 ITR 960 (Bom)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts or new tangible material available-Disallow corporate social responsibility expenditure-Notice based on change in law in succeeding assessment year-Not valid.[S. 37(1), 143(3), 144B, 148,Art. 226]

Oerlikon Balzers Coating India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2025) 482 ITR 951 (Bom)(HC)

S. Declaration-Circular restricting benefit to cases,where miscellaneous applications to Tribunal “dismissed in limine”-The rejection order passed by the Principal Commissioner was quashed and set aside. The Principal Commissioner was directed to issue acknowledgment in form 3 against the application made by the assessee in forms 1 and 2 under the 2020 Act.[S. 119, 254(2), Art. 226]

Hemant Mahipatray Shah v. Anand Upadhyay [2024] 165 taxmann.com 605 /(2025) 482 ITR 1(Bom)(HC) Hemant Mahipatray Shah v. Sahil Arora [2024] 165 taxmann.com 605 /(2025) 482 ITR 1(Bom)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Sanction for prosecution source-Delay in depositing with Revenue-Tax deposited with interest-Circulars issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes-Interpretation of provisions of section 276B to include delay in deposit of tax deducted at source manifestly arbitrary Prosecution quashed-Non-issue of notice and order to treat any of them as principal officer of assessee No order imposing penalty as “deemed to be an assessee-in-default” on assessee or its directors-Criminal complaints against directors of assessee not stating consent, connivance or negligence on their part as required under section 278B(2)-Directors of assessee cannot be prosecuted-Conduct of business of company must have nexus with offence committed-Amendment in law from year 1997-Use of phrase “as required by or under provisions of Chapter XVII-B” Linked only with and explains manner of deduction of tax and payment-Assessee deposited entire tax deducted at source with Revenue for assessment years 2012-2013 to 2018-2019 with interest belatedly-Prosecution quashed.[S. 2(20), 2(35(b) 201(1A), 221, 276B, 278B(2), 279(1)-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 482.]