Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Ravi Agrawal v. UOI (2024)168 taxmann.com 320 /[2025] 302 Taxman 15 //343 CTR 55 /475 ITR 455 (SC). Editorial : Ravi Agrawal v. UOI(2019) 260 Taxman 352/ 410 ITR 399 /306 CTR 177/ 173 DTR 194 (SC)

S. 80DD: Medical treatment of dependent-Disability-Amendment made to S. 80DD vide Finance Act, 2022 cannot be applied retrospectively to policies taken prior to 2014. [Art. 32, 142]

PCIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha [2025] 302 Taxman 5 (SC). Editorial : CIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha (2023) 156 Taxman.com 509 (P& H) (HC)

S. 68: Cash credits-SLP dismissed against High Court’s finding that additions were unjustified-Huge amounts deposited in foreign bank account in Geneva-Assessee pleaded that bank account belonged to nephew situated in UK-Assessee was an agriculturist and his name was struck from the bank account much prior to his visit to Geneva-SLP dismissed also on the ground of delay of 233 days, which was not explained properly.[Art. 136]

PCIT v. Ahinsa Vinimay [2025] 302 Taxman 359 (SC). Editorial : PCIT v. Ahinsa Vinimay (P.) Ltd(2024) 169 taxamnn.com 134 (Orissa (HC)

S. 68: Cash credits-AO made additions towards consideration received by assessee on sale of shares-Assessee had duly disclosed receipt of capital gains and offered for tax-No occasion for making addition-SLP to be dismissed on ground of low tax effect. [S. 153A, Art. 136].

Radha Madhav Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2025] 302 Taxman 358 (SC). Editorial : Radha Madhav Investments (P.) Ltd v.Dy.CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 421 (Bom)(HC)

S. 28(i): Business income-Capital gains-Delay of 752 days-Not satisfactorily explained-SLP of Revenue is dismissed on account of limitation. [S. 45, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 472 ITR 616 /303 Taxman 95/342 CTR 552 / 246 DTR 1 (SC) Editorial : Pr CIT v. Jupiter Capital (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 299 of 2019 dated 20-2-2023] (para 10) affirmed. (2025) 472 ITR 561 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 2(47) : Transfer-definition-Extinguishment of any right there in-Reduction of share capital by company amounts to reduction of rights of shareholder to share in distribution of net assets upon liquidation extinguished proportionately-Such reduction of rights is Transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act.[S. 45]

Dy.CIT v. James Hotels Ltd. (2024) 232 TTJ 976 / 38 NYPTTJ 1283 (Chd) (Trib)

S.271D: Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Receipt of share application money in cash-The amount received by the assessee towards share application money did not fall under the purview of loan or deposits under S. 269SS and consequently, penalty under s. 271D was not leviable.[S.269SS]

Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors v. Dy.CIT (2024) 232 TTJ 90 /242 DTR 216 / 38 NYPTTJ 859 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Undisclosed income-Surrender of additional income during search-No specific discrepancy-Penalty is deleted.[S. 132, 132(4)]

Orchid Pharma Ltd v. ACIT (2004) 232 TTJ 125 (UO) (Chennai)(UO) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-NCLT approved the plan-Penalty levied does not survive-Penalty is deleted. [S. 156, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. 30(2), 31(1), 238]

Ajoy Sharma v. Dy.CIT (2024) 232 TTJ 81 (UO) (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Deductions under sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G ST and loss under the head Income from House Property-Return was filed after time-limit prescribed under s. 139(4) and was invalid return-Re assessment notice-Returned income and assessed income is same-Penalty is deleted.[S.139(4), 147, 148]

Rajinder Kumar v. ACIT (2024) 232 TTJ 261 / 243 DTR 297 / 38 NYPTTJ 776 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-No incriminating material during search-Additional income declared is accepted-Foreign bank account-Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable-Penalty is deleted. [S. 153A, Art.]