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

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-Interest on sticky advances credited to memorandum account is not taxable. [S. 145, 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. 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]

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

S. 147: Reassessment – With in four years- Change of opinion – Alleged double deduction – No failure to disclose material facts – Reassessment is quashed and set aside. [S. 143(3), 148, 149, 151, 36(1)(vii), 37(1), Art. 226]

Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. v. ACIT 11(1) (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

S. 147: Reassessment – Revision -Notional rent – Income from house property – Change of opinion – Reopening based on issues already examined in revision proceedings – The original assessment order dt.31.12.2015) is no longer existed, as it was set aside under Section 263- Making the reopening procedurally invalid – Reassessment is quashed . [S. 22, 143(3), 148, 149, 151, 263, Art. 226]

Dilip Gangaram Patil v. ACIT (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

S. 132: Search and Seizure – Ultra vires seizure – Stock in trade – Writ petition disposed of with directions to avail alternative remedy under S. 132B of the Act . [S. 131(1A), 132(1)(iii), 132B, Art. 226]

H. K. Jewels Private Limited v. ADIT (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org

The Power of Attorney Act , 1882

S. 2: Execution of power- of- attorney -General power of attorney – Transfer – Power of attorney and agreement to sell were not registered- In absence of registration under section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act, it would not be open for holder of power of attorney (POA ) to content that she had a valid right, title and interest in immovable property to execute registered sale deed in favour of appellant- Sale deed executed by General Power of attorney (POA) holder after death of original owner was invalid. [ S. 1A , Indian Contract Act , 1872, 201, 202 , Indian Income -tax Act , 1961 , 2(47) , Indian Registration Act ,1908, 17(1))(b) , 49, , Limitation Act , 1963 , Article . 58 , 65, Transfer of Property Act , 1882 , S.40,53A, 54, 55 , Specific Relief Act ,1877, ]

M. S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula [2025] 172 taxmann.com 7 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Deemed addition- Addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b)- Penalty is deleted. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b)]

Bankimbhai Natverbhai Patel v. ITO (Ahd.)(Trib.)(UR)

S. 270A : Penalty for under -reporting and misreporting of income – Not specifying the limb – Levy of penalty is not valid . [ S.270A(8) 270A(9) ]

Shri Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane v. ITO (Pune)(Trib) (UR)