S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Increase in payment to director- Company approved on 30-9-2004-Expenditure not deductible in Assessment Year 2004-05. [S. 145, 260A]
UC Mas Mental Arithmetic (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025)472 ITR 585 (Mad)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Increase in payment to director- Company approved on 30-9-2004-Expenditure not deductible in Assessment Year 2004-05. [S. 145, 260A]
UC Mas Mental Arithmetic (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025)472 ITR 585 (Mad)(HC)S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions- Tribunal right in holding that disqualification would apply only to that part of income which was in violation of conditions-No substantial question of law- Circular No. 387 Dated 6-7-1984 (1985) 152 ITR 1 (St)- Search and seizure- Documents found in the course of search- Question of law admitted. [S. 13(1)(c), 260A].
PCIT v. Sinhagad Technical Education Society (2025)472 ITR 15 (Bom)(HC) Editorial: PCIT v. Sinhagad Technical Education Society (2025)472 ITR 18 (SC), High Court is directed to consider second question of law along with other questions admitted.S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India- Royalty- Transfer of off-the-shelf- Software-Not assessable in India as royalty-DTAA-India- Israel. [S. 260A, Art. 12 (3)]
CIT (IT) v. Cognyte Technologies Israel Ltd. [2023] 155 taxmann.com 292 / (2025)472 ITR 476 (Delhi)(HC)S. 45 : Capital gains – Interim order – Year of taxability of capital gains on compensation- Interest on compensation-Income from other sources – Delay of 404 days – Delay is condoned – The compensation and interest received by in pursuance of an interim order of the Bombay High Court cannot be taxed in the year of receipt – Addition is deleted – Compensation and interest can be taxed only when the final order is passed by the High Court . [ S. 45(5)(b) , 45(5)( c) ,56(2)(viii) Land Acquisition Act , 1894, S. 11, 18 ]
Percival Joseph Pereira v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .orgS. 272A : Penalty – Failure to answer questions – Sign statements – Furnish information – No notice were received – Sufficient and reasonable cause for non-attendance – Without providing sufficient time to reply cannot be treated as non-compliance u/s.272A(1)(d) -Penalty is deleted . [ S. 272A(1)(d) ]
Dhanraj Ramchandra Chandwani v. ITO ( Pune )( Trib) ( UR)S. 272A : Penalty – Failure to answer questions – Sign statements – Furnish information -The penalty cannot be imposed when AO expresses satisfaction with the assessee’s compliance.[ S. 272A(1)(d) ]
Shilpa Shetty Kundra v. DCIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 342 ( (Mum) (Trib.)S. 271AAB:Peanlty -Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-Assessment completed u/s. 143(3) – Addition made – Reopening u/s. 147 – Again additions made – Two penalty proceedings for both addition – Merging of penalty is not valid – Not specifying the charge – Barred by limitation- Penalty order is quashed . [ S. 274 ,275 ] .
Panda Infratech Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2025) 233 TTJ 356 (Cuttack) ( Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – No specific limb in penalty notice – Penalty order is set aside.[ S. 274 ]
Sudesh Gupta v. ACIT. [2025] 121 ITR 1/ 210 ITD 436 (Delhi) ( Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Depreciation- The Charitable trust voluntarily withdrew the depreciation claim, and there is no deliberate concealment or misrepresentation, penalty- Penalty is deleted .[ S. 11, 32 ]
Mumbai Educational Trust v. DCIT (E) [2025] 210 ITD 608 (Mum)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Income from other sources – Purchase of immoveable property – difference in actual sale price and the stamp duty value – Addition of total stamp duty value- Matter remanded to CIT for further verification. [ S. 56(2)(x) , 69A ]