Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 134 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 43B : Deduction only on actual payment-Unpaid interest on loan from World Bank-Section 43B(d), (da), (e) covering only interest payable to specific financial institutions, non-banking financial companies, scheduled banks or co-operative banks-World Bank or State Government loans not included-Disallowance deleted-Deduction only on actual payment-Statutory liability-Electricity duty collected from consumers but not remitted to Government-Assessee merely a conduit between consumer and Government-No independent liability-Disallowance rightly deleted.[S.43B(a), 43B(d), 43B(da), 43B(e)]

Vicky Fincon P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 18 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 28(i): Business loss-Assessee a share trader and investor-Losses from share transactions including listed securities-Assessing Officer disallowing claim treating shares as penny stocks-Assessee transacting huge volumes of shares-Addition made on basis of preconceived idea after general investigation of investigating authority-Order set aside and addition quashed. [S. 45, 69]

Vaishnav Samaj Trust v. ITO (2025) 132 ITR 169 (Surat)(Trib.)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Exemption-Capital gains-Sale proceeds reinvested in fixed deposit with scheduled bank-Deemed acquisition of new capital asset-Assessee eligible for exemption on capital gains-Interest earned on fixed deposits retained in bank account and applied for charitable purposes-Qualifies for exemption. [S. 11(5), 11(IA)]

Dialog Axiata PLC v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 43 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement not affected by amendments in Act-Assessee entitled to advantage of provisions under Agreement-Assessee a non-resident telecommunication operator providing international carriage and connectivity services in Sri Lanka-Interconnect user charges not royalty-Not taxable in India-DTAA-India-Sri Lanka.[S. 9(1)(vi), Explns. 2, 5, 6, 147 , arts. 7, 12]

Sherlyn Dias (Mrs.) (Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Dorothy Lawrence Pereira) v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.),

S. 45: Capital gains – Income from other sources – Transfer of Development Rights — Compensation received under a redevelopment agreement is assessable as Capital Gains and not as Income from Other Sources. Exemption under section 54EC is allowable. [ S. 2(14), 2(47), 54EC, 56, 50C & 147)

Pr. CIT v. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Bom.)(HC)(www.itatonline.org .

S. 80IB: Industrial undertakings – Special category States –
– Research & Development (R&D) expenditure – Allocation of R&D expenses to eligible manufacturing units – No allocation permissible in the absence of direct nexus between R&D activity and eligible units – Revenue’s appeal dismissed. [S. 35(2AB), 80IC , 260A)

Late Padmaben Zinabhai Trivedi v. ITO (Guj.)(HC) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Reference to DVO – Fair Market Value as on 1-4-1981 – Amendment to section 55A(a) prospective – Reassessment invalid- The Court left open the question regarding the validity of a notice issued in the name of a deceased person. [S. 45, 48, 55A, 148, Art . 226 ]

Torrent Investments Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 802 (Ahd) Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of proper enquiry-Short-term capital loss on sale of shares-FIFO method-The issue was examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings, who had taken a correct view –CRS expenditure-Revision order was quashed-Exempt income-Revision order was affirmed.[S. 14A, 80G]

Anand Boddapaty v. PCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 228 / 178 taxmann.com 423 (Hyd)(Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of proper enquiry-Assessment order passed by the AO without examining the claim by conducting relevant enquiries which ought to have been carried out-Revision order was affirmed. [S.54]

Sangeeta Gupta (Smt.) v. ACIT (2025) 237 TTJ 236 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Notices sent to the wrong e-mail address-Failure to intimate change of email-Ex parte order was set aside-Cost of Rs 2500 was imposed on each appeal. [S. 254(1)]