S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Interest on agricultural income tax (AIT)-Not allowable as business expenditure.[S 10(1),40(a)(ii)]
Aspinwall and Company Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 321 (Ker.)(HC)S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Interest on agricultural income tax (AIT)-Not allowable as business expenditure.[S 10(1),40(a)(ii)]
Aspinwall and Company Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 308 Taxman 321 (Ker.)(HC)S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Expenses towards charitable purposes-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP delay of 621 days-SLP of revenue was dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [Art. 136]
CIT (E) v. Hyderabad Cricket Association (2026) 308 Taxman 238 (SC) Editorial: CIT (E) v. Hyderabad Cricket Association (2025) 180 taxmann.com 322 (Telangana) (HC)S. 28 (i) : Business income-Slump sale-Going concern-Compensation for termination of agreement-Licensing Agreement was on a principal-to-principal basis and held that consideration would not fall within Section 28(ii)(c)-Order of Tribunal affirmed.[S. 28(iic), 260A]
CIT v. Spectra Shares and Scrips Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 141 (Telangana)(HC)S. 14A: Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Delay of 469 days-SLP dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [R.8D, Art. 136]
PCIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. (2026) 308 Taxman 185 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd [2025] 179 taxmann.com 410 (Delhi) (HC)S. 12AA : Procedure for registration-Trust or institution-Assessee society was established with the object of imparting education-earnings it received were also utilised for the purpose of advancement of education-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP of revenue dismissed.[S. 2(15), 10(23)(vi), Art. 136]
CIT v. Yadvindra Public School Association (2026) 308 Taxman 237 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Yadvindra Public School Association(2024) 167 taxmann.com 584 (P& H)(HC)S. 9(1)(vi): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Global advertising and promotional rights, including a non-exclusive right to use ICC and event marks under an agreement with GCC Singapore-Consideration attributable to right to use such marks constituted ‘royalty’ within meaning of section 9(1)(vi) read with article 12 of India-Singapore DTAA, and apportionment of one-third of total consideration as royalty (taxable at DTAA rate) and balance as advertisement expenditure was valid-Writ petition was dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore.[S. 195, 264, Art. 12, Art. 226]
LG Electronics India (P.) Ltd. v. DIT(IT) [2026] 308 Taxman 537. 489 ITR 229 (Delhi)(HC)S. 9(1)(vi): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Payments made to non-resident telecom operators by assessee, for providing interconnect services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries was not chargeable to tax as royalty or fees for technical services-Order of High Court affirmed-Delay of 308, 457 and 473 days-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay and also on merits-OECD Model Convention, Art. 12. [S.9(1)(vii), Art. 136]
Dy.CIT v. Emirates Telecommunications Group Company (Etisalat Group). (2026) 308 Taxman 240 (SC) Editorial : Dy. CIT v. Emirates Telecommunications Group Company (Etisalat Group) (2025) 181 taxmann.com 658 (Karn)(HC)S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent establishment-Service PE-Legal advisory services-Indian clients-44 days, excluding vacation-It did not meet 90 days criteria to constitute a service PE in India during the relevant year-Article 5(6) of the India, Singapore DTAA only contemplates rendering of services by employees present within country, concept of virtual service PE does not find mention in DTAA, thus cannot be read in to DTAA-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art. 5(6)]
CIT(IT) v. Clifford Chance Pte Ltd [2026] 308 Taxman 431/ 485 ITR 407 (Delhi)(HC)Interpretation of taxing statutes-Strict interpretation-Precedent-Judgment based on old, broader law cannot be used to interpret new, stricter provision.[S.36(1)(vii)]
National Co-Operative Development Corporation v. ACIT (2026) 484 ITR 193/ 308 Taxman 168 / 348 CTR 83 (SC) Editorial : Editorial : National Co-operative Development Corporation v. ACIT [2012] 204 Taxman 6 /[2013] 356 ITR 184 (Delhi) (HC) affirmed.Interpretation of taxing statutes-Strict interpretation-Where words are plain and unambiguous, court bound to give effect to their plain meaning-Whether language is “plain and unambiguous” to be determined within context-Legislative intent-Crucial where language is ambiguous and capable of multiple constructions-Legislative purpose primarily to be gathered from specific words used by Legislature-Where language plain and unambiguous, court cannot read words into statute on notion that they would better serve legislative purpose-Aids to construction-Memorandum Explaining Provisions of Bill can be used to derive meaning of provision.[S.44C, 37 (1)]
DIT (IT) v. American Express Bank Ltd. (2026) 484 ITR 137/ 308 Taxman 246 / 348 CTR 38 / 256 DTR 497 (SC) DIT(IT) v. Oman International Bank S.A. O.G (Now Doha Bank) 2026) 484 ITR 137/ 308 Taxman 246 / 348 CTR 38 / 256 DTR 497 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 55/[2004] 134 Taxman 682 (Bom) (HC) disapproved. DIT (IT) v. American Express Bank Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1294 of 2013, dated 1-4-2015(Bom)(HC) set aside