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. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Real estate business-Change in method of accounting from percentage-of-completion to completed-contract method-Change revenue-neutral, following Accounting Standards, verified by auditors and accepted in subsequent years-No loss to exchequer-Principal Commissioner’s directions to reconsider financial expenses, depreciation, current liabilities, deduction under section 80-IAB, house property income, loans and advances to related parties, etc.-Matters already examined by Assessing Officer-No indication of how order erroneous-Revision amounting to fishing and roving enquiries-Assessment order not prejudicial to Revenue-Revision quashed. [S. 2(22)(e), 80-IAB, 145]
DLF Assets Ltd v. PCIT (2025) 132 ITR 448 (Delhi) (Trib.) DLF Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 132 ITR 448 (Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 80P : Co-operative societies –Interest income from fixed deposits with scheduled banks, personal loans to employees and house building loans not attributable to business of providing credit facilities to members-Deduction rightly denied-Commission, miscellaneous and sundry receipts not attributable to business of providing credit facilities-Deduction rightly denied. Income-Method of accounting-Overdue interest on non-performing assets-Income recognition-Matter remanded to exclude interest only if supported by statutory guidelines or accounting standards-Assessment-Income from other sources-Expenses against interest income-No further expenses allowable beyond those already claimed in computation of income-Disallowance confirmed Principles of natural justice-Alleged lack of opportunity before Commissioner (Appeals)-Appellate order passed after considering submissions-No violation was found.[S.4, 80P(2)(a)(1), 80P(2(d) 143(3), 250]
West Bengal State Co-operative Agri and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 434 (Kol) (Trib.)
S. 9(1)(ii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Salaries-
Non-resident-Salary income-Services rendered outside India while on deputation from Indian company-Assessee non-resident in India and tax resident of Australia-Salary received in India for employment exercised in Australia-Australian tax return accepted as evidence of residency-Tax residency certificate filed at appellate stage accepted-Exemption allowable-Scope of total income-Salary received in India for services rendered abroad-Not taxable in India when employment exercised outside India-DTAA-India-Australia. [S. 9(1)(ii), 15, 90, Art 15]
Yogesh Kotiyal v. ACIT (IT) (2025) 132 ITR 419 (Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 80GGC: Contribution-Any person-Political parties-Political party not genuine, not existing online, not responding to official notices, not filing required financial reports to the Election Commission for several years, and its own return showing nil contributions received-No certified documents furnished-Political party an unrecognised political party-Deduction rightly disallowed. [S. 133(6)]
Jayeshkumar Gopalbhai Akbari v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 407 (Surat) (Trib.)
S. 10AA: Special Economic Zones-Computation of export turnover-Foreign currency expenditure not to be excluded from export turnover for computing deduction-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Failure by Commissioner (Appeals) to render finding on certain issues-Application pending before Commissioner (Appeals)-Direction to dispose of application.-Rectification of mistake-Order giving effect to Tribunal’s order-Assessing Officer’s failure to grant relief on several issues-Direction to dispose of pending rectification applications.-Deduction of tax at source-Credit for-Credit granted in original proceedings but not fully given in order giving effect to Tribunal’s order-Assessing Officer directed to verify and grant full credit.[S. 154 ,199, 254(1)]
Renault Nissan Technology and Business Centre India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 395 (Chennai) (Trib.)
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Manufacturing of power distribution equipment-Import of raw materials-Transactional net margin method-No defect pointed out-Contract manufacturing not a proper comparable-No adjustment required-Information technology services from associated enterprise-Transfer Pricing Officer’s simultaneous use of comparable uncontrolled price and nil valuation contradictory-Assessee’s transfer pricing study acceptable-No adjustment called for.-Reimbursement of travel, lodging and employee cost on cost basis-Cost incurred without benefit improbable-Transfer Pricing Officer’s benchmarking proper. [S. 92]
Schneider Electric Infrastructure Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 358 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 263 : Revision-Erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue-Assessee a trust running engineering colleges-Anonymous donations in cash and demand drafts found during search-Receipts offered to tax and taxed under section 115BBC-Principal Commissioner invoking section 263 to deny exemption on capitation fees relying on decision stayed by Supreme Court-Assessment framed after full verification-Twin conditions for section 263 not satisfied-Revision void ab initio-Precedent-Distinction between “stay” of order and “quashing of order”-An order stayed does not become operative from the date of the stay order, whereas quashing restores the position as it stood prior to the order quashed.[[S. 11, 12AA, 115BBC, 153A]
St.Joseph’s Institute of Science and Technology Trust v. PCIT (2025) 132 ITR 331 (Chennai) (Trib.) St. Joseph’s Educational Trust v. PCIT (2025) 132 ITR 331 (Chennai) (Trib.)
S. 153 : Assessment-Limitation-Final assessment order passed beyond time-limit prescribed under section 153(2)-No reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Reassessment proceedings barred by limitation-Assessment order quashed. [S. 69, 144, 144C(13), 147, 148, 153(2)]
Farooq Ali v. ITO (2025) 132 ITR 316 (Hyd) (Trib.)
S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposits during demonetisation period-Assessing Officer having made detailed enquiries regarding source of cash deposit and accepted explanation after verification-Principal Commissioner cannot invoke revision merely because he believes deeper enquiry was required-Revision unwarranted. [S. 143(2), 142(1)]
Manuj Jain (HUF) v. PCIT (2025) 132 ITR 298 (Chd) (Trib.)
S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-Non-resident –”Make available”-Receipts for centralised information technology support, data management and maintenance services-No technical knowledge, skill or process made available-Recipient unable to independently manage IT environment without continuous recourse to service provider-Not fees for included services-Not taxable in India-Remittances to India-Discrepancy between figures in Forms 15CA and 26AS-Matter remanded for verification.-DTAA-India-USA [S. 9(1)(vii)(b) , 115A, 263 ,Art. 12(4)]
Visteon Corporation v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 279 (Chennai) (Trib.)