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. 271D : Penalty-Acceptance of loans/deposits otherwise than by crossed cheque-Assessee claiming bank account used by others for demand drafts towards liquor licence applications-Affidavits of depositors stereotyped, not clarifying position at time of repayment-Matter remanded for fresh verification. [S. 269SS, 269T, 271E]
Prem Singh Saini v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 720(Jaipur) (Trib.)
S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Assessing Officer failing to consider applicability of minimum alternate tax provisions to assessee-company-Incorrect assumption of facts and incorrect application of law-Revision justified-Book profits-Exclusion from minimum alternate tax-No specific exemption for company under voluntary liquidation-Provisions of company law regarding preparation of accounts not relevant-ITR-6 pro forma recognising liquidation cannot override the Act-Section 115JB clearly applicable-Provisions of minimum alternate tax clearly applicable-Revision justified-Assessee-company undergoing voluntary liquidation citing impossibility of preparing statement of profit and loss-Held, profits and losses determinable under any system of accounts followed, enabling computation of minimum alternate tax.[S.115JB, Companies Act , 1956 , S. 551 , Companies Act , 2013, S. 348]
Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 132 ITR 698(Kol) (Trib.)
S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Notice and order issued in name of erstwhile company but mentioning factum of amalgamation in cause title-Not invalid-Nothing to establish that issues on which revision exercised were examined by Assessing Officer during assessment-Duty cast on Assessing Officer to examine issues not performed-Order of Principal Commissioner setting aside assessment order-Proper. [S. 14A, 40(a)(i), 143(3)]
Simens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd. (through successor in interest Siemens Ltd.) v. PCIT (2025) 132 ITR 679(Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Non-resident-Permanent establishment-Assessee acquiring group in May 2016, falling in financial year relevant to assessment year 2017-18-No transaction or business connection between assessee and Indian entity during relevant assessment year 2016-17, prior to date of acquisition-Indian entity not associated enterprise at relevant time-No agency permanent establishment-Assessment of attributed profits quashed-DTAA-India-USA. [art. 5(4)]
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 664(Bang) (Trib.)
S. 143(2) : Assessment –Notice-Limitation-To be reckoned from date of filing of original return and not from date of curing of defects-Return filed under section 139(1) within time-Defect notice under section 139(9) subsequently cured-Notice under section 143(2) issued beyond time-limit reckoned from date of original return-Assessment without jurisdiction-Quashed. [S. 139(1), 139(9)]
Aark Infosoft P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 646(Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 195: Deduction of tax at source-Payment to non-resident-Liability to deduct tax only if income of non-resident chargeable to tax in India-Standard software licences-End-user licence agreements not transferring copyright-Payments not royalty-Provisions of domestic law not applicable when Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement more beneficial to assessee-No obligation to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India-UK. [S. 9(1)(vi), 90(2), 201(1), 201(1A), Art. 13]
DCIT v. Vodafone West Ltd. (2025) 132 ITR 633(Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Comparable companies-Related party transactions filter-Companies having 99 per cent. and 100 per cent. related party transactions-To be excluded from final set of comparables–Assessing Officer obligated to compute income in conformity with arm’s length price determined by Transfer Pricing Officer-Assessing Officer changing cost allocation methodology from headcount ratio to salary expense ratio, partly disallowing support services cost-Not proper-Depreciation on intangible assets being customer contracts and assembled workforce-Allowable-Deduction of tax at source-Credit for-Assessing Officer directed to verify and grant credit for tax deducted at source, advance tax and self-assessment tax.[S. 32(1)(ii), 92B , 92CA(3), 92 CA(4)]
Genpact Services LLC v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 612 (Delhi) (Trib.)
S.145: Method of accounting-Project-completion method-Real estate developer-Sale proceeds recognised only upon obtaining completion certificate and handing over possession, not during year under consideration-No sales effected or possession handed over during relevant year-Ad hoc addition based on registration of sale deeds not justified-Allocation of common expenses among group companies based on business volume accepted by Department in earlier years-Project-completion method regularly followed-No discrepancy pointed out in audited accounts-Ad hoc disallowance not justified. [S. 43CA ,143(3)]
VTP Mohite Associates v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 580(Pune) (Trib.)
S. 56 :Income from other sources-Income-Search and seizure-Fraudulent Income-tax refunds obtained through bogus challans-Income invested in shares and deposits-Assessee having tangible control and dominion over funds-Taxable on accrual, not merely on receipt-Recovery or repayment in subsequent years cannot negate taxability in year of accrual-Deduction for recovery/repayment not allowable under section 57-Fraudulent income taxable under “Income from other sources-Offences and prosecution-Execution of false challans with intent to defraud Income-tax Department-Revenue authorities directed to take deterrent action permitted by law. [S.2(24), 57, 132, 277 ,Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 177, 193, 196, 199]
Mukesh Rasiklal Shah v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 536(Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue expenditure-Brand relaunch expenses spread over three years-Activity not enlarging profit-making apparatus nor new line of business-Substantially revenue expenditure though benefit accruing over years-Not capital merely because benefit flows over more than one year-No enduring advantage in capital field-Expenditure allowable-Disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income-No exempt income earned during year-Explanation introduced by Finance Act, 2022 prospective, not applicable-No disallowance called for-Accrual of liability-Expenditure disallowed as prior period expenses-Ascertained and crystallised during the year-No deduction claimed in earlier years-Allowable in year of crystallisation-Deduction only on actual payment-Delayed payment of employees’ contribution to provident fund and employees’ State insurance-Not allowable. Payments to foreign agencies for services rendered abroad-Payees having no permanent establishment in India-Payments not taxable in hands of non-residents under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements-Cannot be disallowed for failure to deduct tax at source. Commissioner (Appeals) directing Assessing Officer to reconcile difference between interest receipts and bad debts-Mere directions for verification-No interference called for. [S. 2(24)(x), 9(1)(vii), 14A , 40(a)(i) , 43B , 250 , 254(1)]
Express Publications (Madurai) P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 519(Chennai) (Trib.)