Home › Archive for Income-Tax Act › Page 93
Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (NO. 3) (2024)469 ITR 403 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A ITR No. 191 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003(Bom)(HC) CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 4) (2024)469 ITR 410 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A (ITR No. 349 of 1995 dt. 5-3 2003 (Bom)(HC) CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 5) (2024)469 ITR 414 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (ITA.No. 426 of 1998 dt. 10-4-2003 CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 6) (2024)469 ITR 416 (SC) Editorial : CIT v.Citi Bank N. A (ITA No. 1 of 1988 dt. 5-3-2003, ITR No. 232 of 1996 dt. 22-7-2003) CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 7) (2024)469 ITR 417 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Citi Bank N. A (ITR.No. 265 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003) CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 7) (2024)469 ITR 417 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Citi Bank N. A (ITR.No. 265 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003)

S. 28(i) : Business income-Interest on securities-Business income-Business expenditure-Salaries and perquisites-Disallowance is to be restricted to expenditure apportioned under profits and gains of business or profession and not under head interest on securities. [S. 18, 20(1(i), 36, 37(1), 40A(5),44C, Art. 136]

CIT v Citi Bank N. A. (No. 2) (2024)469 ITR 398 (SC) Editorial : Citi Bank N.A. v.CIT (2003) 262 ITR 47 (Bom)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business income-Interest on securities-Business income-Business expenditure-Salaries and perquisites-Disallowance is to be restricted to expenditure apportioned under profits and gains of business or profession and not under head interest on securities-Precedent-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 18, 20(1(i), 36, 37(1), 40A(5), Art. 136]

CIT v. Bank of America (2024)469 ITR 406 (SC) Editorial: Decision of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bank of America (Bom)(HC)(ITR No. 81 of 1994 dt. 22-7-2023, Followed, CITv. Citi Bank N.A. (No. 2 (2024) 469 ITR 398 (SC)

S. 28(i) : Business income-Accrual of income-Banks-Interest on doubtful loans-Determined in accordance with Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular. [S. 21, 40A(5), 119]

PCIT v. M. P. Entertainment and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2024)469 ITR 428/ 302 Taxman 361 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. M. P. Entertainment and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2024)469 ITR 421 (MP)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business income-Income from house property-Object of developing commercial properties-Rental income assessable as business income-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 22, Art. 136].

CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 7) (2024)469 ITR 417 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Citi Bank N. A (ITR.No. 265 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003)

S. 18 : Interest on securities-Banks-Interest received at time of sale of securities-Assessable as interest on securities and not as income from business. [S. 28(i), 136]

Dy. DIT v. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (2024)469 ITR 391 (SC) Editorial : Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2023) 457 ITR 189(Karn)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty- Deduction of tax at source-Payments to Non-Residents-Telecommunications operators for providing inter-connectivity services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries-Not chargeable to tax as royalty-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 195, 201, Art. 136]

CIT v. GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. (2024)469 ITR 389 (SC) Editorial: Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd v. CIT (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC) is reaffirmed.

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Deduction of tax at source-Payment to Non-Resident-Royalty User licence agreement for use of computer software by Non-Resident supplier to distributor and resold to resident end-user, or directly supplied to resident end-user-Not royalty for use of Copyright in computer software-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Review petition is dismissed on account of delay of 515 days and also on the merits. [S. 195, Copyright Act, 1957, S. 14(a), 14(b), 30]

CIT v. Standard Chartered Bank (2024)469 ITR 408 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Standard Chartered Bank, ITR No. 87 of 1996 dt 16-7-2003 (Ker)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Accrual-Banks-Interest on bad and doubtful debts is not taxable.[S. 5, 119, Art. 136]

CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (NO. 3) (2024)469 ITR 403 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A ITR No. 191 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003(Bom)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Accrual-Interest on sticky advances credited to memorandum account is not taxable. [S. 145, Art. 136]

CLE Private Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 147: Reassessment – Limitation – TOLA did not apply as the limitation period expired before 20.03.2020- Notice under section 148 issued in 31-7-2022, which is beyond the prescribed time limit – Reassessment held to be invalid. [S. 68, 133(6), 142(1), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, 151, 154, 115JB]