| Relevant Act |
Section |
Case Law Title |
Citation |
Brief Summary |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 2(47) |
Income-tax Officer v. Ramesh Shankarlal Bhandari |
Click Here |
Relinquishing all development and possessory rights over a land parcel for a lump-sum consideration amounts to a ‘transfer’. The assessee is entitled to the full indexed cost of acquisition for the entire parcel. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 10(10B) |
Avinash Arvind Kulkarni v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS 2019 is treated as a capital receipt exempt under Sec 10(10B) (retrenchment compensation) and cannot be taxed under Sec 10(10C). |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 12AB |
Refuge v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Converting a refund into a tax demand via a Sec 154 rectification order (due to missing Sec 12AB details) without issuing prior notice or a hearing is invalid and lacks jurisdiction. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 36(1)(iii) |
Lodha Developers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
A real estate developer using the percentage/project completion method can claim interest on borrowed funds as a period cost under Sec 36(1)(iii) rather than capitalizing it into work-in-progress (WIP), provided a business nexus is established. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 37 |
ACIT v. Matrix Power- (Wind) (P.) Ltd. |
Click Here |
Higher employee benefit expenses cannot be disallowed merely due to a lack of correlation with declining revenue, provided the expenses are genuine, backed by evidence, and subject to TDS. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 37(1) |
Lodha Developers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Foreign exchange fluctuation loss on consultancy charges (per AS-11) is allowable as revenue expenditure for a real estate developer and does not need to be capitalized into WIP. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 37(1) |
Poclain Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Matter remitted back to the AO where additional evidence was filed before the DRP, but the AO failed to provide a remand report and the DRP confirmed disallowances solely due to limitation constraints. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 43CA |
Lodha Developers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Sec 43CA (effective 01.04.2014) is inapplicable if allotments and execution were concluded in an earlier year, even if the registration occurred in AY 2014-15. Stamp duty difference additions are unwarranted. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 68 |
India Max Investment Fund Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Additions under Sec 68 and 69C based solely on an investigation report are unsustainable if the share transactions on a recognized stock exchange are fully supported by documentation with no proof of sham arrangements. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 92C |
Jinfei Trading India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Appeal rendered infructuous with liberty to restore where the AO failed to consider a TPO rectification order (reducing TP adjustment to Nil) in the final assessment while a Sec 154 application remained pending. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 92C |
ACIT v. Matrix Power- (Wind) (P.) Ltd. |
Click Here |
For INR-denominated Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) issued to an AE, the Prime Lending Rate (PLR) is the appropriate benchmark rather than EBLR. Since the 11% interest paid was at arm’s length, the TP adjustment was deleted. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 92C |
Poclain Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
Forex losses arising from External Commercial Borrowings (ECBs) and capital expenditure must be treated as non-operating items and excluded from the PLI computation in TNMM analysis. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 92C |
Poclain Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
A company engaged in renewable energy and general automotive components is functionally distinct from a 100% export-oriented manufacturer of hydraulic motors/components and must be excluded. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 115BAA |
Mentaura Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT Delhi |
Click Here |
Rejection of a condonation application is justified if the assessee fails to file Form 10-IC within the extended deadline for AY 2020-21 and delays the condonation application far beyond the 3-year CBDT circular limit. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 153 |
Laqshya Media Ltd. v. Asst./Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Click Here |
If the ITAT remands issues to the TPO/AO, and the AO fails to pass the final assessment order within the statutory time limits under Sec 153(3) and 153(4), the original return must be accepted as filed. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 220 |
Refuge v. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Recovery proceedings (including the 20% pre-deposit demand) must be stayed during a pending Sec 154 appeal if the assessment is high-pitched and arose from a procedural denial of exemption for want of Sec 12AB registration. |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec 271(1)(c) |
Pr. CIT v. Elcon Pipe and Fittings (P.) Ltd. |
Click Here |
Penalty for concealment of income under Sec 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed in cases of alleged bogus purchases if the final addition is sustained purely on an estimation basis (restricted to 12.5%). |
