Direct Tax Quarterly Digest: July - September, 2025
Kapil Dhyani
24 Oct 2025 10:00 AM IST
SUPREME COURTForeign Entity Doing Business Through Temporary Premises In India Liable To Tax : Supreme Court Rejects Hyatt International's AppealCause Title: HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (and connected matters)The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 24) ruled that the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) is sufficient to attract tax...
SUPREME COURT
Cause Title: HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 24) ruled that the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) is sufficient to attract tax liability for a foreign entity in India, even in the absence of exclusive possession of a fixed place of business. The Court clarified that temporary or shared use of premises, when combined with administrative or operational control, is adequate to establish a PE, thereby triggering income tax liability in India.
Holding so, the bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed Hyatt International's appeal against the Delhi High Court's order, which had held the company liable to pay income tax in India on income earned through its Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) with Asian Hotels Ltd. for 20 years, the operator of Hyatt's hotel business in India.
Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Timelimit For Assessments Under S.144C
Cause Title: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. VERSUS SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED
The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 8) delivered a split verdict on the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), governing the timeline for passing assessment orders by the Assessing Officer in cases involving eligible assessees, such as foreign companies and transfer pricing matters.
Justice BV Nagarathna ruled that Section 153(3)'s twelve-month cap still governs even in Section 144C proceedings, rendering the assessments time-barred. However, Justice SC Sharma held that the timelines in Section 144C operate independently of Section 153(3) and exclude its outer limit for DRP cases, stating that applying Section 153 could impact tax recovery.
Cause Title: VANDANA & ORS. VERSUS KESHAV & ORS.
The Supreme Court on Monday (Aug. 18) agreed to decide whether the income credited in an Indian bank account while working with a Foreign Entity would be exempted from the payment of Income Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961..
The issue arose before the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while hearing the appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) decision to deduct 30% towards tax liability while computing the compensation claim of the Appellant's deceased husband, who was employed with British Marine PLC, London as Merchant Navy Officer earning 3,200 USD monthly income.
Cause Title: VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR VERSUS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 28) imposed Rs. 2 Lakhs cost on Income Tax Department for 'grossly abusing its position' to continue a prosecution against an assessee alleging willful tax evasion.
The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's decision, which refused to quash the prosecution case initiated by the department. The Court criticized the department's action of launching the prosecution against the assessee in contrast to its own circulars, which allow launching the prosecution for tax evasion under Section 276C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) only after the penalty for concealment is confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: CELL COM TELESERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Case no.: WRIT TAX NO. 278 OF 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that filing of Form 10-IC prior to filing of income tax return is not mandatory and the delay in filing the Form may be condoned in cases where “genuine hardship” is shown to exist.
Form 10-IC, under the Income Tax Act, is required to filed only if a Domestic Company chooses to pay tax at concessional rate of 22% under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act,1961. Section 115BAA provides that subject to the provisions of Chapter XII of the Income Tax Act, a domestic company may choose to compute its income tax at 22% for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2020 provided the conditions mentioned in Section 115BAA(2) are fulfilled.
Case Title: M/S Rai Wines Ras Bahar Colony v. The Commisssioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 395 of 2007
The Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that the findings of best assessment done by the authorities is perverse is on the assesee.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that “when a best assessment is done, it is for the assessee to bring on record the facts that may reveal that the findings are perverse in nature.”
Case Title: Mahesh Gautam v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 436 of 2012
The Allahabad High Court has held that notices under Section 148 and 282 of the Income tax Act, 1961 must be delivered to the assesee personally through speed post and not merely upon his address to complete service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
It held that presumption of sufficient service arises only when the notice is sent by registered post as in registered post the notice is delivered to the person it is addressed to. Highlighting the difference between registered post and speed post, the Court held that service will be deemed sufficient when sent through speed post only if it has been delivered to the addressee him/herself and not upon the address to a different person.
Bombay HC
Case Title: Bajaj Auto Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.505 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court has stated that sales tax incentive under a government scheme for industrial promotion is a capital receipt, not taxable.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne were addressing the issue of whether an incentive received in sales tax liability under a Scheme formulated by the State Government would be on the capital account, exempt from taxation, or on the revenue account, liable for taxation.
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court stated that reassessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act beyond 4 years requires specific non-disclosure by assessee, not mere bald allegations.
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the reopening of assessment proceedings. This section gives discretion to the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment proceedings when he/she has reason to believe that some of the income has escaped assessment.
Case Title: M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: Income Tax Appeal No. 407 of 2003
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a provision for doubtful debts cannot be treated as either a "reserve" or a "provision for liability" under clauses (b) or (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus cannot be added back to the book profits for the purpose of minimum alternate tax (MAT). The Court accordingly overturned the addition of ₹2.49 crore made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing an appeal filed by M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd., which had made a provision for doubtful debts in its profit and loss account for the Assessment Year 1997–98.
Case Title: M/s. Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that insurance claim received on dead horses is capital receipt, not taxable as income under Section 41(1) Of Income Tax Act.
The bench opined that horses in respect of which the insurance claim was received were Assessee's capital assets and that therefore insurance receipt arising therefrom could only have been considered as capital receipt, not chargeable to tax.
Case Title: Krishnagopal B. Nangpal v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range – 3, Pune
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses, would qualify for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The issue before the bench was whether Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act allows the Assessee to set off the purchase cost of more than one residential units against the capital gains earned from sale of a single residential house.
Case Title: Pune Municipal Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Pune and Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.9551 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court held that Section 194C and Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act would not apply when TDR Certificates are issued in lieu of compensation.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla agreed with the assessee that the words “or by any other mode” appearing in Section 194C would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”. Similarly, in Section 194LA, the words “or by any other mode” would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”.
Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Doesn't Count As Service On Assessee: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.491 AND 492 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that serving order on chartered accountant doesn't count as service on assessee. The issue before the bench was whether the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal when served upon the Chartered Accountant is sufficient service and whether it can be construed as 'copy received by the assesse/applicant'.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta stated that the Chartered Accountant since is not also authorised specifically to accept copy of the order, cannot be said to be a recognised agent of the Assessee.
Case Title: Narendra I. Bhuva v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.681 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of vintage car taxable unless the assessee proves that the car was used as a personal asset.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that the capability of a car for personal use would not ipso facto lead to automatic presumption that every car would be personal effects for being excluded from capital assets of the Assessee.
Case Title: Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Raigad
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1139 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court held that interest on fixed deposits, TDS refund linked to business qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides tax incentives for businesses operating in certain sectors such as infrastructure, power, and telecommunications.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated that the placement of fixed deposits was imperative for the purpose of carrying on the eligible business of the assessee. The placement of fixed deposits is not for parking surplus funds which are lying idle. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the assessee had used these fixed deposits for purchasing cranes for the eligible business. There is a direct nexus between the fixed deposits and the eligible business of the assessee.
Case Title: Tivoli Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and another
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004
The Bombay High Court stated that the assessing officer (AO) can determine the annual value of the property higher than the municipal rateable value under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act.
The issue before Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was whether it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to determine annual value of the property for the purposes of taxation under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1960 higher than the rateable value determined under the Municipal laws.
Case Title: Molbio Diagnostics Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.142 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has stated that reassessment beyond 3 years is valid where bogus royalty expenses exceed Rs. 50 lakhs.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years, in the present case, where the alleged bogus royalty expenses exceeded 50 Lakhs.
Case Title: Classic Legends Pvt Ltd. v. Assessment Unit & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14748 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that a draft assessment order is not permissible under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act when the TPO (transfer pricing officer) makes no variation.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar stated that …..the assessee/petitioner can be stated to be an “eligible assessee” only if there is a case of variation referred to in the said sub-section 1 and which arises as a consequence of the order passed by the TPO under sub-section 3 of Section 92CA. It is an admitted position that there was no variation in the income of the assessee by virtue of the order of the TPO…
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2166 OF 2018
The Bombay High Court has held that payments to consultant doctors are not salary. Hence, TDS is deductible under section 194J and not under section 192 of the Income Tax Act.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated that there does not exist an employer-employee relationship between the assessee and consultant doctors, and the payments made to them by the assessee come under the purview of section 194J of the Income Tax Act.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1, Kolkata v. Rungta Mines Limited
Case Number: ITAT/215/2024
The Calcutta High Court held that Internal CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method is most appropriate for ALP (Arm's Length Price) determination in captive power transactions.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing issue of whether the Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method adopted by the assessee was right in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for power supplied by the assessee's Captive Power Plants (CPPs) to non-eligible units for transfer pricing adjustments.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Minto Park Estates Private Limited
Case Number: ITAT/4/2025 (IA NO: GA/2/2025)
The Calcutta High Court held that mere incorporation of investing companies under the Companies Act is not enough to prove the genuineness of share transactions.
The bench opined that, admittedly, the shares were by way of a private placement. Though the investing companies might have been incorporated under the provisions of the Company's Act, that by itself will not validate the transaction.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Zulu Merchandise Private Limited
Case Number: ITAT/88/2025 (IA NO: GA/2/2025)
The Calcutta High Court held that stock exchange and banking channels cannot mask sham transactions carried out through bogus capital loss claim companies.
Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed that “the entire information contained in the investigation report was apprised to the assessee by the assessing officer and thereafter the show cause notices was issued for which the assessee' submitted their reply and in the reply they did not raise any issue that they were unaware about the investigation report but made a vague and unsubstantiated statement stating that the transaction was in the normal course of business.”
Case Title: The West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-54 Kolkata
Case Number: ITAT/36/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that interest earned on surplus lending funds is attributable to banking business, qualifies for 80P deduction under Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) stated that interest earned by the West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. on surplus funds from NABARD lending business eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Chhattisagarh HC
Case Title: Nanakchand Agrawal v. The Income-tax Officer
Case Number: TAXC No. 8 of 2024
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that cash deposits during demonetisation are not unexplained money if traceable to previous year's balance.
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari stated that the factum of liquidation/refund of short-term loans and advances and its consequential accumulation as cash-in-hand as on 31-3-2016 could have been examined in the assessment year 2016-17 only particularly when the Assessing Officer has not discharged the burden cast upon him to implicate the assessee into the sweep of Section 69A.
Compensation Received From NHAI For Acquisition Of Land Not Taxable: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Baid v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: TAXC No. 176 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the compensation received against the acquisition of land from the NHAI (National Highways Authority of India) is not exigible to tax under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act (Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013).
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal stated that once compensation is determined under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, as a necessary corollary, the benefits flowing from the provisions of the said Act, including exemptions from income tax, stamp duty and fees contemplated under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, would also have to be made applicable.
Delhi HC
Payments Made To AWS For Cloud Computing Services Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case Title:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES
Case no.: ITA 150/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that payments made to Amazon Web Services (AWS) for cloud computing services do not qualify as “royalty.”
The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision which held that such payments are not taxable as royalties or fees for technical services (FTS). The Court referred to earlier judgments to emphasize the difference between transferring intellectual property rights and simply giving access to standardized digital services. It dismissed the appeal, highlighting the key distinction between access to digital resources and ownership or control over them.
Case title: M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11601/2024
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside the reassessment action initiated against journalist Rajat Sharma's company, M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., which owns and runs the India TV channel, over alleged foreign remittances.
The notice was issued following a survey conducted by the Income Tax Department at the J&K Bank back in 2019, revealing that the company had made foreign remittances amounting to ₹6,50,84,454/- during AY 2017-18, which did not tally with the amounts reflected in its bank statement.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 192/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against Thomson Press (India) over the sale of a property in Noida back in 2013, allegedly at a price much lower than the prevailing circle rate.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia noted that the registered agreement to sell and payment of stamp duty with respect to the property transaction were already completed by the date when the circle rate of the area in question was enhanced.
Case title: Tungsten Automation England Limited (Formerly Known As Tungsten Network Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi
Case no.: ITA 92/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that consideration paid for merely availing services that require technical expertise would not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Service' under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed that unless the recipient absorbs the technology and exploits it independently, it cannot qualify as 'FTS' which is taxable in India for the service provider.
Case title: Neeraj Bharadwaj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2) & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3979/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made on a non-searched entity only when the Assessing Officer has incriminating material which “has a bearing” on its total income.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia rejected Revenue's contention that there was no requirement that the information contained in the seized material which relates to a non-searched person should have a bearing on his income for the AO to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C.
Case title: Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax Office
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 1575/2018
The Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 276C, 276D and 277 of the Income Tax Act 1961 merely on the basis of some unauthorised documents alleging existence of an undisclosed Swiss Bank account in his name.
In doing so, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “Merely on some unauthenticated information received from a third Country with no material evidence, is not sufficient to make out a prima facie case and there cannot be a presumption that a person has committed any wrongdoing.Thus, mere surmise and conjectures is not enough to prosecute a person alleging a criminal offence under Section 276D.”
Case title: Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax Office
Case no.: CRL. M.C. 219/2018
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea for quashing a criminal complaint lodged under Income Tax Act 1961 for alleged tax evasion, moved on the ground that reassessment action was pending and hence the complaint was premature.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna cited P. Jayappan vs. S.K. Perumal, First Income Tax Officer [1984] where it was held that pendency of re-assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to the institution of criminal prosecution for the offences under Section 276-C or Section 277 Income Tax Act.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Xiocom (Nz) Ltd
Case no.: ITA 299/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that consideration paid by an Indian entity to a foreign company for the resale/ use of their computer software is not 'royalty'. A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus held that the Indian entity is not liable to deduct TDS in such cases.
The bench in this regard relied on Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Incometax & Another (2021) where the Supreme Court had held that amounts paid by Indian companies for the use of softwares developed by foreign companies do not amount to 'royalty' and that such payment do not give rise to income which is taxable in India.
Case title: Sangeet Seth v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16569/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the higher rate of 5% interest to be paid when an assessee moves second plea for compounding the offence of failure to pay Tax Deductible at Source (TDS), is not applicable if their first plea was simply rejected.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “5% is only chargeable when the earlier offence has been compounded. This means that the compounding order should have been passed, and also the conditions stipulated in the said order should have been complied with (like payments), for the respondents to claim 5% charges on the second application, which necessarily has to be for a second offence.”
Case title: Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 49(1), New Delhi
Case no.: ITA 267/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that an employer can claim deduction of employees' contributions towards Provident Fund or Employer's State Insurance Fund, held by it in trust, only if it deposits these amounts on or before the statutory due date prescribed under the relevant labour law.
Thus a division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held, “Employer's contributions under Section 36(1)(iv) and employees' contributions covered under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section2(24)(x) are fundamentally different in nature and must be treated separately. Employees' contribution deducted from their salaries are deemed to be income under Section 2(24)(x) and are held in trust by the employer. The employers can claim deduction only if they deposit these amounts on or before the statutory due date under Section 36(1)(va).”
Case title: Raj Krishan Gupta And Ors v. Principal Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) -1 New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11005/2024
The Delhi High Court has upheld the surprise search and seizure conducted by the Income Tax Department at the private lockers maintained by a family at South Delhi Vaults, without issuance of prior notice or summons to them. The family claimed that failure to notify them was a flagrant violation of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which relates to 'Search and seizure'.
Section 132(1)(c) stipulates that when the Department has 'reason to believe' that any person is in possession of undisclosed money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles, then the officer authorised may open the locker, safe, etc. and seize such articles. The Petitioners however stressed on sub-sections (a) of the provision which stipulates issuance of summons or notice to such persons, asking them to produce books of account explaining the articles.
Gujarat HC
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and transfer Pricing v. M/s Adani Wilmar Ltd.
Case Number: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 514 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court stated that DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) prevails over Section 206AA of Income Tax Act for TDS on payments to non-residents without PAN.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi was addressing the appeals pertains to alleged short deduction of TDS and raising demand by invoking provisions of section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: M/S. KALPATHARU BREWERIES & DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26031 OF 2017
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Gram Panchayat cannot levy or collect property taxes in respect of Industrial establishments located within areas notified by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any administrative communication cannot vest power in the Gram Panchayat to levy tax in the absence of express delegation or statutory backing.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a batch of petitions and quashing the demand notices issued by the Sompura Gram Panchayat levying property tax on the industrial property of the petitioners located within the notified industrial area established and maintained by the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB).
Karnataka High Court Directs CBDT To Extend Tax Audit Due Date To 31st October
The Karnataka High Court today directed the Central Board of Direct Taxes to extend the due date for filing Tax Audit Reports under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by one month to 31st October, 2025.
The Court took into consideration the difficulties faced and directed the CBDT to extend the due date until the end of October.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO.9318 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that assessment proceedings against deceased person invalid without notice to legal heirs under Section 93 CGST Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. addressed the issue where the wife of the deceased, challenged the GST DRC-07 summary order issued in the name of her deceased husband.
Case Title: Mr. Thomas Joseph v. Union of India
Case Number: WA NO. 430 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has allowed the settlement application under Section 245A of the Income Tax Act filed beyond cutoff date, while citing Supreme Court's COVID limitation order.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj referred to the order of Supreme Court in MA. Nos.665 of 2021 [In Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation] and stated that the assessee had filed the application for settlement on 17.03.2022, which is well within the time granted by the Supreme Court taking note of the Covid pandemic situation.
Case Title: Salim Aboobacker v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 12164 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court held that proceedings under Section 148A of Income Tax Act not sustainable if escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs and notice issued after 3-years.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “when the order of the assessing authority is found to be without jurisdiction and hit by the period of limitation, it is not necessary to relegate the party concerned to undergo the rigor of the statutory proceedings”.
Case Title: Keerampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15933 OF 2022
The Kerala High Court quashed Income Tax proceedings under Section 148 against co-operative society initiated on cancelled PAN.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the transactions pertain to the relevant assessment year were carried out based on the PAN card that was then in existence, which was later cancelled. By the time the proceedings of assessment were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148, the assessee was issued with a new PAN card, wherein, the status of the assessee was shown as the AOP (Association of Persons).
Case Title: Mediacloud Studio Private Limited v. The Assessment Unit
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17312 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that reply to one SCN on old email cannot justify non-service of subsequent notice on updated email.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “one of the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was indeed served to the assessee in the old email ID, which was after updating the email ID. The assessee also submitted a response to the said notice as well. However, that by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions put forward by the assessee.”
Case Title: A One Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 14218 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has upheld triple tax on unauthorised construction due to lack of proof of deemed permit.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “in the absence of any documents indicating the submission of application for permit and inaction on the part of the Panchayat in considering the said application, the contention of the assessee as to the deemed permit cannot be accepted.”
Case Title: Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO.12516 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that the powers of revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is confined to reviewing existing orders, and the authority cannot issue directions to the assessing authority. Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner to revise certain orders.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that powers conferred upon the revisional authority are confined to examine the sustainability of an order passed under the provisions of the Act and it does not extend to issuing orders to the assessing authority without reference to any order so passed.
Case Title: Perinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem
Case Number: W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that property tax can't be levied without following statutory assessment procedure under Section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that without complying with the procedural formalities required to bring the rate of tax and the measure of tax to the knowledge of the prospective assessees, the levy of property tax cannot be seen as having come into existence vis-a-vis those assessees.
No Violation Of Article 14 In Denying Property Tax Exemption To Unaided Schools: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24012 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no violation of Article 14 in denying property tax exemption to unaided schools.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the fact that the Government owned, managed and aided schools are established by the Government at their funds in order to provide education to all classes of persons by collecting nil or meagre fees, is a crucial factor which distinguishes such establishments from an unaided school, where fees is collected from the students for rendering the services.
Case Title: Mrs. Sainaba Hamza Koya v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40744 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that to claim the Section 54F deduction under the Income Tax Act, the assessee must satisfy the authorities that borrowed funds were used at their own risk with the intention to be repaid with capital gains.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that "...even in a case where, the residential building was purchased, or it was constructed utilising the borrowed funds or funds from other sources, there is an obligation on the part of the Assessee to satisfy the authorities that, the funds were spent by the assessee either through borrowing or arranging from other sources at his/her own risks and costs, in anticipation of or with an intention to appropriate the income to be subjected to capital gain tax, for such purchase or construction…"
Madras HC
Case Title: Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P.No.18560 of 2023
The Madras High Court held that digital marketing is a business and not a profession; and an audit report is not required for turnovers below Rs. 5 crores.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. In the event anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which is below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee is not required to file an audit report and they are exempted.”
Case Title: M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA No.340 of 2016
The Madras High Court stated that the Income Tax commissioner cannot revise an assessment merely because detailed reasoning was not given in the order.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan stated that, "an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If the Income Tax Officer, acting in accordance with law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, simply because, according to the Commissioner, the order should have been written more elaborately."
Rajasthan HC
Title: Tax Bar Association, Bhilwara v UOI & Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court has extended the deadline for filing the Tax Audit Report by one month. A division bench of Justice (Dr.) Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta at the Rajasthan High Court extended the deadline under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by 1 (one) month beyond September 30, 2025.
It was submitted that in the previous years, CBDT had consistently granted such extensions in similar circumstances, and refusal to grant the same in the present situation was arbitrary, unreasonable, and a violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA No.:3013/CHNY/2024
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that S.148 Income Tax notice issued after 31.03.2021 under old regime invalid despite TOLA [Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020] extension.
George George K. (Vice President) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that due to COVID-19, the Government introduced the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA), extending time limits. Accordingly, the time available for the Department to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act under Old Regime, falling during the period from 20.03.2020 till 31.03.2021, were extended till 30.06.2021.
Case Title: Sivakarthick Raman v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA No.:281/Chny/2025
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that salary received by Chinese resident for the services in China not taxable in India, even if credited to the Indian bank account.
Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that “the AO has disallowed the exemption claimed with respect to salary received in India for services rendered in China as taxable in India since the salary has been credited by BMW India Pvt Ltd into the assessee's account at Chennai from the payroll account of Chennai……. The salary income for services rendered in China has been rightly offered tax by the assessee in China.”
Case title: Indian National Congress All India Congress Committee v. DCIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi
Case no.: ITA No.1609/Del/2023
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the Indian National Congress seeking income tax exemption for the income of ₹199.15 crore during the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal rejected the party's claim for exemption on the ground that there was a violation of the conditions in Section 13A of the Income Tax Act. The returns were filed late, the ITAT noted. Calling for a strict interpretation of the exemption clause, the ITAT observed that "the moment there is violation of such a “due” date, section 13A 3rd proviso gets attracted, so as to result in denial of exemption to the political party concerned."
Widow Eligible To Claim TDS Credit On Deceased Husband's Income: ITAT
Case Title: Lovely Das v. Addl/JCIT, Nashik
Case Number: I.T.A. Nos.: 291, 292, 293 & 294/KOL/2025
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that widow eligible to claim TDS credit on deceased husband's income.
Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) stated as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 37BA and sub-rule 3(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if the income is assessable in the hands of any other person, the credit of TDS shall be given to him for the year in which the income is shown.
Case Title: Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana v. ITO, Ward-1 (9) Ahmedabad
Case Number: ITA No.1014/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that rebate under section 87A available on short-term capital gains under section 111A under new regime.
Suchitra R. Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) stated that on a plain reading of the statutory provisions, there exists no express bar either in section 87A or section 111A for denial of rebate in respect of tax payable on short-term capital gains arising from transfer of listed equity shares taxable at special rates under section 111A. The legislative intent is further clarified by the subsequent amendment proposed in the Finance Bill, 2025, which is prospective in nature and thereby reinforces that no such restriction was in force during the relevant assessment year.
Property Transfer Between Spouses Without Actual Consideration Not Taxable As Capital Gains: ITAT
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.957/Del/2025
The New Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that property transfer between spouses without actual consideration is not taxable as capital gains.
S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) were dealing with the issue arises out of addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-, being consideration amount mentioned in conveyance deed, executed by late Sunil Kumar, as received, from his wife Bimila Devi, who was alleged purchaser.
Wedding Gifts Can't Be Automatically Treated As 'Unexplained Income' Without Evidence: ITAT
Case Title: Manubhai Dahyabhai Bhoi v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No.779/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that wedding gifts can't be automatically treated as unexplained income without evidence.
Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) stated that the fact that marriage gifts were received prior to the date of marriage itself could not lead to the conclusion that the same are not genuine, when a complete lists of persons from whom the gifts were received was duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and no specific defect had been pointed out with respect to the lists of persons so furnished by the assessee.
Case Title: Ankit Gems Private Limited v. Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai
Case Number: ITA No. 3097/MUM/2025
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that the assessee is not required to prove negative once documentary evidence is produced.
Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) stated the assessee cannot be made to prove the negative stance for which has been taken by it, right from the very first hearing by bringing on record all the corroborative documentary evidence in respect of its actual and real purchase made by it, forming part of the books of accounts.
Case Title: Pradeep Jeyavelu v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No.1626/Chny/2025
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that sale proceeds of a minor's property share deposited under court order are excluded from father's taxable income.
S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) held that the assessee cannot decide the utilization of his minor daughter's share as it is deposited as per Court's order and it is impossible to club the same in the assessee's (father) hand.