Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


ACIT v. AIM Fincon (P.) Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 169 (SC) Editorial : AIM Fincon (P) Ltd v.ACIT(2024) 166 taxmann.com 680 (Guj)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Reopening on same set of facts invalid-The reasons assigned for explaining the delay of 489 days in filing SLP are neither satisfactory or sufficient in law for condonation-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 68, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Weedo Ventures (P.) Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 624 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Weedo Ventures (P.) Ltd. (2024)167 taxmann.com 614(Cal)(HC)

S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice –Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under section 143(2)-Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata completed assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) –Additional ground-Order is bad in law –Tax effect is less than 1, 50,0000-SLP of revenue is dismissed as failure to explain the delay of 477 days. [S. 143(3), Art. 136]

PDIT (Inv) v. Vipul Kumar Patel (2024) 301 Taxman 408 (SC) Editorial: Vipul Kumar Patel v. UOI [2024] 167 taxmann.com 140 (Telangana) (HC)

S. 132: Search and Seizure-Warrant issued-Search premises left blank-Witnesses from different place-Panchnama-Search invalid-Documents to conduct search fabricated-High Court has directed the Department to refund cash of Rs.5.00 crores to assessee with interest at 12% p.a. along with costs of Rs.20,000-SLP of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous as subsequent assessments have been made.[S.132A, 132B, Art. 14,136, 300A]

PCIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha (2024) 469 ITR 149 / 301 Taxman 551 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha [2023] 156 taxmann.com 509 /(2024) 469 ITR 142 (P & H)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Deposits in foreign bank account-Deposit belonged to the nephew and not assessee-Sufficient evidence provided-No additions in the hands of the assessee-210 days delay-Reaons for condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient-SLP of Revenue is dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 69, Art.136]

Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 407 (SC) Editorial : Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024) 167 taxmann.com 323 (Bom)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Civil contractor-Widening and strengthening of existing road-Purchase of marble for construction of High way Authority-Parties whose name cheques were alleged to be issued had deposed on oath that they had neither encashed cheque nor received amount-Order of Tribunal affirming the disallowance is affirmed-SLP of assessee is dismissed.[Art. 136]

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. CIT [2024) 301 Taxman 463/ 469 ITR 280/ 341 CTR 65 /243 DTR 1 (SC) Editorial: Decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd ( 2008) 218 CTR 417/ 5 DTR 239 /(2019) 316 ITR 391 (Raj)(HC), is reversed.

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Broken period Interest –Stock in trade-Allowable as revenue expenditure. [S.28(i)]

CIT v. Subex Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 404 (SC) Editorial: Subex Ltd. v. CIT-III (2021) 132 taxmann.com 96 /285 Taxman 350(Karn)(HC)

S. 35D : Amortization of Preliminary expenses (General)-Claim of was granted by Assessing Officer-Claim could not be disallowed in subsequent year by Commissioner through his revisionary powers without disturbing decision in initial year —No challenge is made against the rectification. order passed by revenue-SLP disposed as infructuous.[S. 154,263, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 316 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (2023) 155 taxmann.com 322 / 458 ITR 593 (SC)

S. 35ABB : Licence to operate telecommunication services-Classification of royalty payment as revenue expenditure-Appeal de-tagged for specific consideration. [S. 37(1)]

CIT (IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 402 (SC) Editorial: CIT (IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd (2024) 159 taxmann.com 278 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Revenue from software sales to Indian clients, said revenue could not be treated as royalty and subjected to Indian taxation-DTAA-India-USA [S.9(1)(vii), 195, art. 12, Art.136]

Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Co. v. CIT (IT) (2024) 469 ITR 31/ 301 Taxman 392 (SC) Editorial: Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Company v. CIT (2024) 299 Taxman 334 /465 ITR 649 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(v) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Interest-Other income-Guarantee to various banks to extend credit facilities to its Indian subsidiaries-Guarantee charges were not received by assessee in respect of any debt owed to it by its Indian subsidiary-Guarantee fee would not fall within expression ‘interest’ in article 12 of India UK DTAA –Accrue-Arise-Income-SLP of assessee is dismissed-DTAA-India-UK-Northern Ireland / [S. 2(28A), 5(2), 260A, Art.7, 12(5), 23(3), Art. 136]