Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT (LTU) v. State Bank of India (2025) 302 Taxman 365 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. State Bank of India (2024) 169 taxmann.com 304 (Karn)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the relevant portion of clause in penalty notice-Order of High Curt deleting the penalty is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 274, Art. 136]

Chavakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 302 Taxman 305 (Ker)(HC)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Delay in obtaining audit reports from statutory auditors under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules-Reasonable cause-Penalty order is quashed.[S.44AB, 273B]

Hemalatha Rajan v. Dy. CIT (2025) 302 Taxman 229 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cash credits-Cash deposit-Demonetisation-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 68, 143 (3), 260A]

CIT v. Genpact Consulting Singapore PTE Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 470(Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Transfer of shares-Capital gains-Colourable device-Dividend distribution tax-Merely recipient of income and was not entity which had either declared or paid dividend, revisionary proceedings were not justified-DTAA-India-Singapore [S. 45, 47(iv), 115-0, 260A, Art. 13]

CIT v. Zebra Technologies Asia Pacific Pet. Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 380 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Commercial substance-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Order of the Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 260A, Art. 12]

CIT v. Embassy Brindavan Developers (2025) 302 Taxman 362 (SC) Editorial : Embassy Brindavan Developers v.CIT (2023) 291 Taxman 188/ 457 ITR 234 (Karn)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital asset-Solitary transaction-Sold without development-Assessing Officer accepted the claim as capital gains-Two plausible view-Order of High Court quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 2(14), 45, Art. 136]

CIT, LTU v. Canara Bank (2025) 302 Taxman 369 (SC) Editorial : CIT, LTU v. Canara Bank (2021) 277 Taxman 215 (Karn)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Order passed by Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Tribunal-Subsequently set aside by High Court-Revision is not valid-Order of High Court is affirmed. [S. 32, 143(3), Art. 136]

Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 302 Taxman 537 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal-Stay-No coercive or precipitative steps had been taken by revenue-Stay petition cannot be dismissed as premature-Matter remanded to the Tribunal to decide on merits. [S. 92C, Art.226]

Knowell Realtors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 302 Taxman 433 / 482 ITR 423 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation-Appellate Tribunal has no power to condone the delay-The Appellate Tribunal being a creature of the Statute cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond what is expressly conferred on it under the Statute-Order of Tribunal is set aside. [S.254(1), 260A]

UOI v. Vinay Kumar (2025) 302 Taxman 280 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Disciplinary proceedings against Commissioner (Appeals)-Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer-Delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against respondent, six months prior to retirement of respondent, was fatal-Writ petition of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 226]