This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Income Deemed to accrue or arise in India -Shipping, Inland Waterways Transport and Air Transport- Directed the issuance of the certificate for nil withholding tax under section 197- However, it is clarified that issuance of the certificate shall not preclude the Assessing Officer from examining whether the income/receipts of the assessee are chargeable to tax in India in assessment proceedings, uninfluenced by this order- India -Germany. [S. 9(1)(i), 195(3), Rule, 29B(1), 29B(2), Art, 8, Art. 226]

Lufthansa Cargo AG v. ACIT (2025) 304 Taxman 671/481 ITR 790 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 195 :Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums-Income-Deemed to accrue or arise in India -Royalty FTS-Advertisement/Web charges) -Not liable to deduct tax at source-Order of Tribunal affirmed- DTAA -India -USA. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)vii),201(1), Art. 12]

CIT (IT) v. Urban Ladder Home Decor Solutions (P.) Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 155 (Karn)(HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Diamond testing / certification charges paid to GIA USA through Hong Kong laboratory-Mere rendering of services, without making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, cannot be treated as FTS under Art. 12 of India-USA DTAA-Assessee not liable to deduct tax at source-SLP of Revenue dismissed. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), Art. 12, Art. 136]

CIT (IT&TP) v. Star Rays (2025) 304 Taxman 180 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Star Rays (2023) 294 Taxman 641 / 457 ITR 1 (Guj)(HC).

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-An agreement with IGSPT for availing services-Not liable to deduct tax at source. No substantial question of law. [S.260A]

CIT (TDS) v. Vodafone Essar Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 389 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake -Mistake apparent from the record- Return of income-Assessee was directed to file order treating return as invalid with revenue and a copy of ITR form uploaded with system of revenue and return which was treated as defective. On receipt of above documents, revenue shall dispose of rectification petition filed by assessee after giving assessee an opportunity of hearing. [S. 44AB, 139(9), Art. 226]

Lupin Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CPCID (2025) 304 Taxman 676 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Block Assessment-Satisfaction note-Block period-Seized material must pertain to relevant assessment year-Bearing-Notices issued in absence of incriminating material based on non-speaking satisfaction notes unsustainable-Satisfaction notes in these petitions had alluded to incriminating material having been recovered for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively, and the materials that were co relatable had been specifically identified. All other contentions of parties could be raised in the ongoing proceedings- SLP dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 132, 153A 158BB, Art. 136]

ITO v. Saksham Commodities Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 515 (SC) ACIT v. Chander Parkash Gupta (2025) 304 Taxman 607 (SC) ACIT v.Satyapal Arya (2025) 304 Taxman 179 (SC) Editorial : ITO v. Saksham Commodities Ltd(2024) 161 taxmanncom 485/ 464 ITR 1 / 338 CTR 418 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After expiry of three years-It would be Principal Chief Commissioner who would be liable to be recognized as being competent authority- Sanction accorded by Principal Commissioner for reassessment under section 148A is not valid-Reassessment notice and consequential order was quashed. [S.148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 471 (Delhi)(HC)

151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Deposited donations received in cash in its bank account-Reassessment notice and sanction was without application of mind -Delay of 246 days-Not satisfactorily explained-SLP dismissed. [S. 11, 12A, 147, 148, Art. 136]

ITO (E) v. Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Alandi Dewachi (2025) 304 Taxman 667 (SC) Editorial : Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Alandi Dewachi v.ITO (2025) 173 taxmann.com 62 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Considering the objection order u/s 148A(d) was passed-Again objection was raised in response to notice u/s 142(1)-No explanation for delay in filing the writ petition -Interim relief rejected-Matter listed on 7th April, 2025 for further orders. [S. 148, 148A(b),148A(d), Art. 226]

Tomorrow Technologies Global Innovation Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 304 Taxman 703 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless assessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Jurisdiction of authority who passed order- Interim stay was granted for a period of four weeks.[S. 144B, 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), 151A, Art. 226]

Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 304 Taxman 454 (Mad)(HC) Editorial :Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 169 taxmann.com 542 (Mad)(HC) (SJ)