Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


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 (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]

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2025) 476 ITR 80 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital-Installation of cell site towers Provision did not contemplate distinction between capital borrowed for revenue or capital purpose-Expansion of business-Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to examine aspects pertaining to common pool of funds as framed by Tribunal and cell sites actually brought into use. [S. 37(1), 260A]

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2025) 476 ITR 80 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Installation of cell site towers-Lease agreement-Accounting Standard 29-Entitle to depreciation.[S. 260A]

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd 2024] 165 taxmann.com 653 / (2025) 476 ITR 769 (Bom)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-
Deduction of tax at source-Transactions entered into pertaining to assessment years prior to introduction of Explanation in section 9(1)(vi)-Explanation 4 introduced in section 9(1)(iv) by Finance Act, 20121 cannot have retrospective effect and payment not royalty liable to deduction of tax-Appeal of revenue was dismissed. [S. 9(1)(vi), Expln. 4, 37, 40(a)(ia), 195(2).

CIT (IT) v. Sales Force.Com Singapore Pte. Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 8 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Salesforce.com Singapore Pte. Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 257 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Non-resident-Copy right-Subscription fees-SLP of revenue dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art. 12(4)(b). Art. 136]]

PCIT v. Greenply Industries Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 347 /304 Taxman 192 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Excise duty exemption Purpose test formulated by Supreme Court Excise duty exemption granted for purpose of industrialisation and generation of employment in States-Excise duty exemption capital receipt-Book profit-Excise duty exemption availed being in nature of capital receipt and not chargeable to tax under normal provisions cannot be added in book profit. [S.115JB]

PCIT v. Ritum Jain. (2025) 476 ITR 69 (Cal)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Income or capital-Sales tax incentive received from State Government under West Bengal Industrial Promotion Scheme-Capital receipt-Appellate Tribunal-Power-The Tribunal has the power to entertain a claim of deduction not claimed before the Assessing Officer by filing revised return. [S. 139,254(1)]

CIT v. Meera Goyal (2025) 476 ITR 152 (SC) Editorial : Order of High Court affirmed, CIT v. Meera Goyal (2013] 214 Taxman 298 / (2014) 360 ITR 346/267 CTR 265 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Forfeiture of earnest money arising out of agreement to sale a property is not liable to tax–Income from other sources-Capital receipt-Advance received under agreement to sell-Forfeited-Receipt would go to reduce cost of acquisition of asset-Cannot be assessed as income from other sources-Appeal of revenue dismissed. [S. 51, 56(2)(vi), Art. 136]