S. 28(iv): Business income-Value of any benefit or perquisites-Converted into money or not-Assignment of trade mark-Not value of any benefit or perquisite arising from business-No case made out for taxing consideration for sale of trade marks as profits chargeable to tax.[S.41(1), 260A]

S. 12AA: Procedure for registration-Trust or institution-Charitable purpose-Registration cannot be denied merely because activities promote entrepreneurship, incubation or economic development; at the registration stage, CIT(E) is required to examine only charitable objects and genuineness of activities-High Court held the tribunal justified in directing grant of registration under section 12AA.[S. 2(15), 12AA(1)(b)(i), 260A]

S. 12AA: Procedure for registration-Trust or institution-Charitable purpose-Registration cannot be denied merely because activities promote entrepreneurship, incubation or economic development; at the registration stage, CIT(E) is required to examine only charitable objects and genuineness of activities-High Court held the tribunal justified in directing grant of registration under section 12AA-SLP of revenue was dismissed. [S. 2(15), 12AA(1)(b)(i), Art. 136]

S. 12A: Registration-Trust or institution-No satisfactory explanation or reasons for delay in filing application for registration-Contradictory stand-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 10(23C)(iiiad),260A]

S.9(1)(vi): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Sale or supply of software-No transfer of copyright, only copyrighted article supplied-Receipts not liable to tax as royalty under Article 12(3) of India-Singapore DTAA-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S.90, Art. 12(3)]

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Business advance-Utilised for payment of assessee’s personal tax under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, and not for execution of job work; the same was rightly treated as deemed dividend-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.260A].

S. 2(14)(iii): Capital Asset-Agricultural land-Sale of land as agricultural land-AO treated it as capital gain-Only village officer certificate as proof-Failure to produce evidence-Order of Tribunal rejecting the exemption was affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 45, 260A]

S.147A: Reassessment – Constitutional validity – Retrospective amendment – Jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) – Faceless assessment – Section 147A inserted by the Finance Act, 2026, with retrospective effect from 1-4-2021, clarifying that the Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A shall mean an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit – Amendment held unconstitutional and struck down. [ S. 120, 124, 127, 130, 144B, 147, 148 , 148A(b) , 148A(d), 151A , Income -Tax Act , 2025, S. 532,,536(2)(c), ,General Clauses Act, 1897 , S. 5 , Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 265 ]

S.80IA: Industrial undertakings – Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development -Strictures – Construction of roads and other infrastructure works- Concurrent findings of fact – Department failed to establish perversity or application of an erroneous legal test – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for concurrent findings of fact in the absence of a substantial question of law – Departmental appeal dismissed.- The Court observed that departmental appeals under section 260A should not be filed routinely by mechanically framing purported substantial questions of law. The Court observed that the Departmental Authorities should look into these aspects of the matter and take corrective step(s), as may be deemed necessary. Copy was forwarded to the PCIT. [S.80IA(4), 260A.]

S.195: Deduction of tax at source – Payment to non-resident – Acquisition of trademark – Assessee acquired absolute ownership of trademark “Jamawar” from a non-resident for lump-sum consideration – Assessee furnished trademark assignment agreement, proof of ownership, nature of right transferred, valuation details, commercial terms and Tax Residency Certificate of recipient – Payment was for acquisition of a capital asset and not for use of trademark or payment of royalty – Consideration for outright acquisition of trademark being capital gains in the hands of recipient, provisions of section 195 were not attracted – Assessee could not be treated as assessee-in-default under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable – Demand deleted. [S. 5, 9(1)(vi), 201, 201(1A).]