| Section 2(9) |
Besties Trading (P.) Ltd. v. Initiating Officer, BPU, Delhi |
Where cash deposited during demonetisation in accounts of entities controlled by an accommodation-entry operator was routed to assessee through banking channels, since both entities were found to be non-genuine and assessee failed to establish actual delivery of goods, entities were benamidars and appellant was beneficial owner, and thus, provisional attachment was justified. |
[2026] 192 taxmann.com 94 (SAFEMA – New Delhi) |
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 |
| Section 5 |
Ford India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU |
Where assessee, engaged in manufacture and sale of motor cars, collected advances from customers for extended warranty and offered such receipts to tax only in year when warranty obligation matured, such advances were not taxable as income in year of receipt, but only when actual liability arose. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 318 (Chennai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 5 |
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kisan Discretionary Family Trust |
Where assessee held investments in Deep Discount Bonds, addition made for accrued interest thereon, was not sustainable and was ordered to be deleted. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 678 (Gujarat) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 6 |
Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where broadcast distribution company during relevant years collected subscription fees on behalf of AEs and entered such transactions as specified domestic transactions under section 92BA, references for transfer pricing adjustments made by Assessing Officer after 1 April 2017, following omission of clause (i) of section 92BA, could not validly sustain transfer pricing adjustments on those transactions, thus such adjustments were not tenable. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 971 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
General Clauses Act, 1897 |
| Section 9 |
Halliburton Offshore Services Inc v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where an assessee supplied cementing units and batch mixers to ONGC under pure import contracts and all aspects of the offshore supply transaction occurred outside Indian soil, consideration received was not taxable in India, including under section 44BB, as such offshore supplies do not accrue or arise in India. |
[2026] 192 taxmann.com 871 (Dehradun – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 9 |
Halliburton Offshore Services Inc v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where interest on income-tax refund received by assessee arose from tax relating to core business activities carried out through its Permanent Establishment in India, such interest remains intrinsically linked to business and is taxable as business profits under Article 7 of India-USA DTAA, not as interest income under Article 11. |
[2026] 192 taxmann.com 871 (Dehradun – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 9 |
Barclays Execution Services Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International Tax) |
Where non-resident Barclays group entities rendered infrastructure and business support services to Indian group entities and receipts were treated by Assessing Officer as fees for technical services or included services, such amounts could not be characterized as FTS under India-UK or India-USA DTAAs merely because of professional expertise or commercial benefits, hence additions made on this basis were unsustainable. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 941 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 12A |
Indian Institute of Management v. Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) |
Where educational institution established under IIM Act sought registration under section 12A but was found charging high fees, generating substantial recurring surplus, and lacking material to justify necessity or scale of fund accumulation for proposed expansion, application was rightly rejected as conditions of section 2(15) were not demonstrably satisfied. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 443 (Chandigarh – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 24 |
Besties Trading (P.) Ltd. v. Initiating Officer, BPU, Delhi |
Where appellant was treated as beneficial owner with alleged cash routed through STMPL and DTPL during demonetisation and argued that deletion of addition in income-tax proceedings justified genuineness, acceptance under Income-tax Act did not override Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, and finding of genuineness for tax purposes would not nullify benami transaction proceedings or attachment. |
[2026] 192 taxmann.com 94 (SAFEMA – New Delhi) |
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 |
| Section 32 |
Ford India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU |
Where assessee claimed depreciation based on differences due to exchange loss capitalisation and opening WDV adjustments, and provided reconciliation for fixed asset additions under Companies Act versus Income-tax Act but Assessing Officer disallowed excess depreciation, matter was to be remanded for Assessing Officer’s consideration of reconciliation and relevant evidence explaining such differences. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 318 (Chennai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Ford India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU |
Where assessee, automobile manufacturer, recognised liability towards ESOP expenses related to parent group and AO disallowed such expenses based on non-remittance to USA entity, since assessee sought verification of whether liability was remitted during relevant year, matter was to be remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 318 (Chennai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee claimed sales promotion expenditure on distribution of gold, silver coins and jewellery to customers and dealers, and such expenses were recurring and business-linked, ad-hoc disallowance by authorities without invoking section 145(3) to reject books was unjustified, so entire sales promotion expenditure was allowable with no part disallowed. |
[2026] 190 taxmann.com 1134 (Kolkata – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee engaged in infrastructure development incurred substantial cash expenses duly recorded in audited books, with no specific inadmissible items or violation of section 40A(3) or rejection under section 145(3), ad-hoc disallowance of such expenses on estimated basis was without foundation and could not be sustained, making impugned disallowance liable to be deleted. |
[2026] 190 taxmann.com 1134 (Kolkata – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee incurred foreign travel expenses, AO disallowed entire amount citing lack of business nexus, but CIT(A) acknowledged business purpose yet partly disallowed on estimated personal use, since department did not reject books under section 145(3), no estimated disallowance was valid and entire foreign travel expenses incurred for business were allowable. |
[2026] 190 taxmann.com 1134 (Kolkata – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(2) |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee paid consultancy or professional fees to related parties and AO made ad hoc disallowance solely on excessiveness without cogent evidence and books were accepted as correct, no part of such expenditure could be disallowed or partly confirmed in absence of proof that payments exceeded fair market value, making ad hoc disallowance unjustified. |
[2026] 190 taxmann.com 1134 (Kolkata – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(2) |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee paid salaries, including to related persons, and AO made estimated ad hoc disallowance of 20 percent (later restricted to 10 percent) without pointing out any defect in supporting evidences or rejecting books of accounts, such disallowance based on presumption and not on objective criteria was not sustainable and was to be deleted. |
[2026] 190 taxmann.com 1134 (Kolkata – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(2) |
Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee made subscription-fee payments to its AEs, reported payments as specified domestic transactions and covered by section 40A(2)(b), and authorities made additions only as transfer pricing adjustments without independent determination under section 40A(2), such transfer pricing additions could not be sustained as disallowances under section 40A(2). |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 971 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(3) |
ACIT v. Bajrang Bahadur Singh marhatha |
Where assessee, a civil contractor, incurred cash expenses for materials and labour and Assessing Officer disallowed payments alleging ledger manipulation without specifically verifying or identifying instances where single-payee, single-day cash payments exceeded permissible limit, such disallowance under section 40A(3) was unjustified and was to be deleted. |
[2026] 190 taxmann.com 1196 (Varanasi – Trib) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 44BB |
Halliburton Offshore Services Inc v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee engaged in oil and gas exploration reported various service revenues including consultancy for field development and advisory to DGHC, such revenues were held taxable under Section 44BB as per Tribunal’s earlier decisions, and not as FTS or royalty under Sections 9 or 44DA. |
[2026] 192 taxmann.com 871 (Dehradun – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 54EC |
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kisan Discretionary Family Trust |
Where assessee earned gains from transfer of interest coupon strips or Deep Discount Bonds held for a qualifying period, such gains are assessable as long-term capital gains and are eligible for deduction under section 54EC, and Circular No.2/2002 prescribing new tax treatment for bonds does not retrospectively apply to existing bond-holders. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 678 (Gujarat) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 56 |
Harjeet Singh Chhabra v. Income Tax Officer |
Where assessee jointly purchased property and Assessing Officer, noticing difference between declared value and stamp duty value for assessee’s 1/3rd share, failed to refer matter to Valuation Officer as required under section 50C(2) and section 56(2)(vii)(b) despite assessee’s request, addition made as income from other sources was liable to be deleted. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 648 (Lucknow – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69 |
Harjeet Singh Chhabra v. Income Tax Officer |
Where assessee jointly purchased immovable property and explained source of investment for his 1/3rd share through bank statements, treating such share as unexplained investment was unjustified and addition was to be deleted. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 648 (Lucknow – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69 |
Devalapur Raghavendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee, a goldsmith and trader in gold jewellery and silver articles, declared excess cash and stock found during survey as additional business income and duly recorded same in its books while finalising accounts for relevant year, since survey was conducted before closure of financial year and no evidence indicated any source of income other than declared business, additions under sections 69, 69A and 69B, with taxation under section 115BBE, were unsustainable and liable to be deleted. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 745 (Bangalore – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69A |
Ford India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU |
Where assessee, an automobile manufacturer, showed discrepancy in vehicles between tax audit and cost audit reports due to certain cars being used as test vehicles and capitalised as fixed assets, inclusion of these vehicles in closing stock was unwarranted, but since assessee’s claim required factual verification, matter was to be remanded for due verification of submissions. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 318 (Chennai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69C |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee furnished complete documentation for purchases, made payments by account payee cheques, and suppliers were GST-registered with returns and GST inputs verifiable, in absence of books rejection under section 145 or further enquiries by AO, ad-hoc disallowance for alleged bogus purchases was not sustainable. |
[2026] 190 taxmann.com 1134 (Kolkata – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where a company was primarily engaged in knowledge process outsourcing, information and technology services, and financial data management, its functions differed from investment sub-advisory services rendered by assessee, hence such company was to be excluded from final set of comparables for determining arm’s length price. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 944 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee provided non-binding investment sub-advisory services to its AE and a company engaged in consultancy and advisory services was excluded from comparables by the TPO merely because it offered advisory services across various sectors, functional similarity in core advisory activities warranted inclusion of such company in final set of comparables for benchmarking purposes. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 944 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee provided non-binding investment sub-advisory services to its AE, a company engaged in portfolio management services and earning income from multiple streams without segmental details was functionally dissimilar and required to be excluded from list of comparables for determining arm’s length price. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 944 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee provided non-binding investment sub-advisory services to its AE, companies engaged in merchant or investment banking and corporate finance activities had significant functional differences and were to be excluded from final set of comparables for benchmarking transfer pricing analysis. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 944 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee, a stock broker, executed broking transactions for AEs and benchmarked brokerage commission using TNMM while TPO applied internal CUP based on non-AE FII rates without making proper comparability adjustments for volume, nature of services or regulatory differences, following consistent Tribunal decisions in assessee’s own case, brokerage services provided to AE and non-AE clients were not directly comparable, making TNMM the most appropriate method for benchmarking and negating transfer pricing adjustment on brokerage commission. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 944 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee, an investment sub-advisor, rendered non-binding investment sub-advisory services to its AE and sought exclusion of an investment advisory company from comparables due to extraordinary business restructuring during year under review, such company was rightly excluded from final comparable set for arm’s length analysis. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 944 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where Government undertaking providing infrastructure consultancy and project management mainly to Indian clients was compared to assessee, substantial differences in functions performed, commercial environment and risk profile warranted exclusion of such company from final comparables set for transfer pricing purposes. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 944 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Cialfo Subcontinent (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Itd. |
Where assessee, a subsidiary providing education SaaS services, reimbursed cost of laptops procured by its AE but payment was still outstanding, non-availability of supporting records for the transaction led to TP adjustment, so in light of absence of payment entries, matter required fresh adjudication after assessee furnished certificate from AE regarding laptop supply and reimbursement claims. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 943 (Delhi – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Cialfo Subcontinent (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Itd. |
Where assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary engaged in education-related SaaS in India, claimed that outstanding sums from its Singapore AE were interest-free operational funds but failed to provide a certified bank statement, auditor’s confirmation, or parent AE’s certificate, matter required readjudication on condition that assessee files these documents for consideration. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 943 (Delhi – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Logica (P.) Ltd. |
Where a company reported extraordinary or super-normal profits in an assessment year due to exceptional events, inclusion of such company as comparable would distort mean margin and undermine determination of arm’s length price, therefore such company must be excluded from comparable set. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 955 (Karnataka) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Logica (P.) Ltd. |
Where assessee providing routine IT-enabled services to its AE was compared to entities engaged in high-end KPO services and following a distinct business model of subcontracting or exhibiting functional dissimilarity, such entities could not be included as comparables in transfer pricing analysis. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 955 (Karnataka) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 139 |
Cialfo Subcontinent (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Itd. |
Where assessee, engaged in education SaaS, filed return on 29 November after being required to furnish report under section 92E, return was within due date and entitled to set-off and carry forward of current and brought-forward business losses, and where AO had not proposed disallowance in draft order, deviation in final order without proper opportunity was impermissible. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 943 (Delhi – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 145 |
ACIT v. Bajrang Bahadur Singh marhatha |
Where assessee civil contractor failed to produce books and supporting vouchers for cash expenditures and AO applied section 40A(3) disallowance, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting books under section 145(3) and estimating business income at 6 percent of gross receipts, as such action appropriately replaced harsh disallowance with reasonable estimation. |
[2026] 190 taxmann.com 1196 (Varanasi – Trib) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 149 |
Ankit Agarwal v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee had duly filed return and audit report, but Assessing Officer issued notice for income escaping assessment based on incorrect ‘non-filing of return’ information and no supporting material was furnished to assessee, issuance of notice under section 148A(b) for this year was barred by section 149 as amended and reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. |
[2026] 190 taxmann.com 1014 (Patna) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 149 |
Golam Sadique Dhali v. ITO, Ward-50(1) |
Where assessee deposited cash of Rs. 20 lakhs and entered into an immovable property transaction of Rs. 64.29 lakhs but did not file return, notice under section 148 issued beyond three years was time-barred as escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs under section 149(1)(b). |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 706 (Kolkata – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 270A |
Zee Akaash News (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee, a television broadcaster, claimed expenditure, depreciation and amortisation on transactions with MMCPL, which was found to be an accommodation entry provider issuing bogus bills at inflated prices, Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 270A for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting, since assessee offered additional income only after being confronted with adverse survey findings, did not file a revised return and failed to establish a bona fide explanation, disclosure was not voluntary and case fell within section 270A(9), warranting levy of penalty. |
[2026] 191 taxmann.com 306 (Mumbai – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 271AAB |
Pallavi Sethi v. ACIT/DCIT |
Where assessee reported excess F&O loss in return due to a clerical computational error and voluntarily offered differential amount to tax, such inadvertent error did not constitute ‘undisclosed income’ under section 271AAB(3)(c), nor could assessee’s offer to tax amount be treated as false, hence penalty under section 271AAB(1A) was not leviable. |
[2026] 192 taxmann.com 131 (Agra – Trib.) |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
