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. 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.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Non-resident-Permanent establishment-Liaison office treated as permanent establishment in earlier years-Assessee closing liaison office, no expatriate employees, evidence produced-Burden shifting on Revenue to rebut-No material brought by Department despite remand opportunity-No permanent establishment in India-No profits attributable-Royalty-Supply of software embedded in hardware-Facts same as earlier years where addition deleted following Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (SC)-Royalty not taxable-DTAA-India-USA [[S. 9(1)(vii) 144C art.5, 12]

Bently Nevada LLC v. ACIT (IT) (2025) 132 ITR 260 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Accrued or contingent liability-Assessee in real estate business-Provision for construction expenses made on fair estimate of amount required for completion of project, following matching concept-Amount spent in subsequent year through proper banking channels, no discrepancies noticed by Revenue-Provision to be allowed.[S. 145]

Surana Mutha Bhansali Developers v. ACIT (2025) 132 ITR 240 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 10A : Free trade zone-Export-oriented units-Condition that exports not less than 75% of total sales-“Export turnover” and “total turnover”-Expenses incurred in foreign exchange in providing technical services outside India excluded from both-75% of total sales to be computed on gross receipts. [S. 10A(2)(ia), 80HHC, 80HHE]

IBM Global Services India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 132 ITR 217 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Jurisdictional validity of assessment order in question due to absence of transfer order under section 127-Commissioner (Appeals) passing order without adjudicating jurisdictional issue despite pending High Court directions-Matter restored to file of Commissioner (Appeals). [S. 127, 143(3), 144B]

DCIT v. Consulting Engineering Services (India) P. Ltd. (2025) 132 ITR 206 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 194LBC : Deduction of tax at source-Payments to investors in securitisation trust-Excess interest spread paid to originator by assessee, a securitisation trust-Originator not an “investor”-Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 115TCA, 201(1)]

ITO v. Syamantaka IFMR Capital 2017 (2025) 132 ITR 61(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 194LBC : Deduction of tax at source-Income in respect of investment in securitisation trust-Definitions of “investor” and “securitised debt instrument”-Originator not holding any pass-through certificates of securitisation trust-Where minimum retention requirement commitment is met via other permissible alternative, originator does not hold instrument in securitisation trust and cannot be reckoned as investor-Assessee not “assessee-in-default”. [S. 115TCA, 201(1), 201(1A)]

Vivriti Cibus 013 2017 v. ITO (2025) 132 ITR 29(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Cash found at assessee’s residence claimed to belong to third party (H group)-H group also claiming the sum and seeking advance tax credit thereof-Same amount cannot be taxed twice-Matter remanded for verification-Income disclosed before Settlement Commission spread year-wise-Petition rejected-Same income taxed again for assessment year 2014-15-Double taxation-Matter remanded for de novo assessment. [S. 132, 132(4), 245D(1)]

Sachin Vilas Chaugule v. CIT (2025) 132 ITR 153 (Mum) (Trib.)