| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 4 |
Burgess English Senior Secondary School v. ITO |
Applying the principle of consistency, where the AO accepted in earlier years that the school was part of CDBE and its income formed part of CDBE’s accounts, the surplus cannot be assessed separately in its hands without new facts. |
Click Here |
| Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 |
Section 4 |
High Profile Softech (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal |
Once an assessee opts for DTVSV Scheme and Form No. 2 is issued, CIT(A)/NFAC should refrain from adjudicating the appeal; upon issuance of Form No. 4, the appeal is treated as withdrawn and subsequent orders are quashed. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 5 |
Jio Platforms Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Subscription revenue received in advance from OTT/recharge vouchers bundled services, recognized proportionately over the service period per consistent accounting policy, cannot be taxed entirely in the year of receipt. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 9 |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ACIT |
Interest earned by an Indian branch of a foreign bank on surplus funds placed with its overseas Head Office/branches cannot be taxed in India, as no real income arises from dealings with oneself under Article 7 of the India-US DTAA. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 10(23C) |
Uttar Bhartiya Education Society v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) |
A delay of 1,797 days in filing appeals due to an inadvertent error by the Chartered Accountant in claiming Section 10(23C)(iiiab) exemption and non-submission of Form 10B deserves condonation, and the matter was restored for decision on merits. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 10A |
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Persistent Systems (P.) Ltd. |
Additions under Section 10A(7) r/w Section 80IA(10) for alleged abnormal profits cannot be made without establishing an arrangement with the transacting party that actually yielded higher-than-ordinary profits. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 10AA |
Genesys International Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Reassessment notice issued on grounds of non-set-off of losses or late export realization amounts to a mere change of opinion when the Section 10AA claim was fully disclosed and allowed during original scrutiny. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 28(i) |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ACIT |
Diminution in the value of securities held as current investments/trading portfolio as per RBI norms represents a real business loss/stock-in-trade valuation loss allowable under Section 37(1). |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 32 |
Jio Platforms Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Depreciation on opening WDV of intangible assets acquired via slump sale, which was examined and allowed in earlier years, cannot be denied by alleging a colorable device in the absence of events reducing the block’s WDV under Section 43(6). |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 36 |
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central -4 v. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. |
The write-off of outstanding trade debtors as irrecoverable in books of account after fulfilling requirements of Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) is a factual finding that gives rise to no substantial question of law. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 36(1)(iii) |
Jio Platforms Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Interest paid on loan liabilities inherited through a slump sale is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii), and no disallowance under Section 40A(2) can be sustained without a finding of excessive/unreasonable expenditure. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 36(1)(va) |
Tata Projects Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 7(3) |
No disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) r/w Section 2(24)(x) is justified when employee contributions to PF/ESI are deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective PF/ESI Acts as supported by verified bank statements. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 36(1)(vii) |
Tata Projects Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 7(3) |
Bad debts relating to completed projects written off in books were allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) r/w 36(2) as the amounts were offered as income in earlier years, irrespective of matching principle issues. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 37 |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ACIT |
Salary reimbursements paid to Head Office for expatriate employees deputed to the Indian branch represent actual operational costs in India and cannot be restricted as Head Office administrative overheads under Section 44C. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 37(1) |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ACIT |
Year-end mark-to-market losses on outstanding foreign exchange forward contracts, recognized per RBI guidelines and mercantile accounting rules, represent an ascertained business liability and are allowable deductions. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 37(1) |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ACIT |
Centralized hub service expenses allocated to an Indian branch by an overseas head office on a scientific basis are operational in nature and allowable under Section 37(1) without attracting Section 44C caps. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 37(1) |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ACIT |
Payment of broken-period interest on the purchase of interest-bearing securities held as banking stock-in-trade is an allowable revenue expenditure, as the corresponding broken-period interest received is taxed as business income. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 37(1) |
Tata Projects Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 7(3) |
Expenditure incurred during the Defect Liability Period for mitigating post-completion project defects requires reassessment by CIT(A) after examining documentary evidence provided by the EPC contractor. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 37(1) |
Sushil Gupta v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 |
SLP dismissed as withdrawn; fine or penalty paid for redemption of goods on account of illegalities/irregularities committed during import is not an allowable business deduction. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 37(1) |
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central -4 v. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. |
Deduction for write-off of expired finished goods inventory after FDA compliance and physical retrieval, substantiated by itemized details and an independent audit report, is a pure finding of fact. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 40(a)(ia) |
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jindal Saw Ltd. |
Deducting tax under Section 194C instead of Section 194I does not render the assessee in default nor justify disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), provided tax was duly deducted and remitted. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 55 |
Commissioner of Income-tax v. HCL Infosystems Ltd. |
SLP dismissed against High Court order holding that amounts received on termination of a Joint Venture agreement for surrender of right to use know-how, labels, and trademarks were not taxable under Section 55(2) as it stood then. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 68 |
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maulik Jayantilal Patel |
SLP dismissed; Section 153C proceedings and additions based on post-search third-party documents/public data without live nexus or incriminating materials found during search are unsustainable. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 72 |
Sanden Vikas India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, TP |
Set-off of brought-forward business losses allowed in assessment orders must be explicitly granted while computing the final tax liability. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 80P |
Orchid Suburbia Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer |
Interest income earned by a co-operative housing society from fixed deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), as co-operative banks retain the character of co-operative societies. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 92C |
Sanden Vikas India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, TP |
Under TNMM, broad functional comparability is sufficient; hence, a company manufacturing auto components/compressors can be accepted as a valid benchmark for an auto air-conditioning manufacturer. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 115BAA |
Radiant Digital Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax |
Rejection of Section 119(2)(b) condonation for procedural delay in filing Form 10-IC was set aside where the return was filed in time and the failure was due to a bona fide oversight causing genuine hardship. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 115JB |
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jindal Saw Ltd. |
Additions/disallowances calculated under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D cannot be added back while computing ‘Book Profit’ under Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 143 |
Bilasa Medicals (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an ITO but the assessment under Section 143(3) was completed by an ACIT without issuing a fresh mandatory Section 143(2) notice, the assessment is without jurisdiction. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 148 |
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rudra Alloys (P.) Ltd. |
Reopening notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAO) instead of NFAC under the faceless scheme were remanded back to High Courts for fresh decision per Apex Court guidelines in Tej Partap Singh and Sai Kumar Mateti. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 149 |
Jay Bharat Dyeing and Printing (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Orders and reassessment notices issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148 beyond the applicable period of limitation are invalid and liable to be quashed following the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Section 194C |
Jayatma Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Reopening of assessment beyond four years on the issue of TDS applicability on integrated services without new tangible material constitutes a impermissible change of opinion. |
Click Here |
