| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 32 |
LNW India Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax / TPO |
Click Here |
Depreciation on goodwill arising from an amalgamation and recognized via the pooling-of-interest method cannot be denied under Sec. 32(1)(ii) in the absence of a specific statutory embargo. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 56 |
Shri Shanteshwar Vividoddeshagala Sahakara Sangha Niyamit v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Interest/dividend earned from investing surplus funds in scheduled/co-operative banks is taxable under Sec. 56 (not business income). However, proportionate expenditure deduction under Sec. 57 must be allowed. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 68 |
Innovative Infrastructure v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Reopening an assessment under Sec. 148 based solely on a third-party broker’s register is unsustainable if the assessee’s name is absent, a 23-month gap exists before the actual purchase, and no corroborative inquiry was made. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 69C |
Pruthvi Singh Solanki v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
For purchases from alleged accommodation entry providers where sales and stock are undisputed, the entire purchase amount cannot be added as unexplained; the addition is restricted to an 8% profit element. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 80G |
Milacron India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Sec. 80G deduction cannot be denied solely because the donation was made to fulfill mandatory CSR obligations, provided all other statutory conditions of Sec. 80G are met. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 80P |
Shri Shanteshwar Vividoddeshagala Sahakara Sangha Niyamit v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
[Issue 1]: Interest/dividends from co-operative banks (banking companies) do not qualify for Sec. 80P(2)(d) deduction, whereas returns from other co-operative societies do. Matter remanded for source verification. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 80P |
Shri Shanteshwar Vividoddeshagala Sahakara Sangha Niyamit v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
[Issue 2]: Interest earned on mandatory deposits maintained with banks under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act qualifies as business income attributable to providing credit facilities to members. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 92C |
Milacron India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Notional interest on outstanding AE receivables cannot be added if the company uniformly charges zero interest to both AEs and non-AEs, transactions are benchmarked under TNMM, and no independent financing layout exists. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 92C |
LNW India Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax / TPO |
Click Here |
Outstanding receivables from AEs do not constitute a separate international transaction for a debt-free company that neither pays nor charges interest across the board; notional interest adjustments are unwarranted. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 143 |
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
A writ petition is maintainable despite alternative remedies if an assessment order with substantial additions is rushed through ritualistically without fair opportunity. Order quashed and remanded. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 144 |
Global Publishing Solutions Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Passing a best judgment draft assessment by treating a return filed under Sec. 142(1) as non-existent is patently erroneous and liable to be set aside. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 148 |
Mahan Energen Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Reopening notices under Sec. 148/148A for periods prior to an NCLT-approved IBC resolution plan are without jurisdiction; all prior tax claims stand extinguished by operation of law. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 153 |
Global Publishing Solutions Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Time spent by an assessee in prosecuting a writ petition must be excluded when calculating the statutory period of limitation under Section 153(2). |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 153A |
K.K. Builders v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2 |
Click Here |
If the ITAT fails to adjudicate an assessee’s plea that a Sec. 153D search assessment approval was mechanical and lacked application of mind by the JCIT, the order must be remitted back to the ITAT. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 205 |
Aditya Ramniwas Dhoot v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
If an employer fails to deposit TDS deducted from an employee’s salary, Sec. 201 and 205 bar direct demand on the employee. The revenue can only pursue recovery from the employer. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 250 |
Samar Nath Mondal v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
A 1,439-day delay in filing an appeal against an ex-parte assessment due to the death of a consultant and lack of digital literacy constitutes a “sufficient cause” and deserves condonation. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 / BNSS, 2023 |
Sec. 277A / Sec. 223(1) |
B. Siva v. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax |
Click Here |
Where prosecution complaints for bogus invoices were filed after the BNSS, 2023 came into force, taking cognizance without giving the accused a prior hearing as mandated by Sec. 223(1) proviso is invalid. |
