January 2025

In a significant ruling on cross-border investments, the Delhi ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of additions totaling over Rs.10 crores. The Tribunal reinforced the principle that share capital received from non-resident entities through banking channels, with proper documentation, cannot be taxed as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The decision emphasizes the sanctity of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) routes and clarifies that the Revenue cannot demand ‘source of source’ once the investor’s identity and creditworthiness are established. The ruling also underscores procedural safeguards under Section 153C, requiring seized documents to specifically belong to the assessee. This judgment provides clarity for multinational corporations and holding company structures, aligning with India’s liberalized FDI policy.

In a landmark ruling on charitable exemptions under Indian tax law, the Supreme Court held that the Andhra Chamber of Commerce qualifies as a charitable institution under section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Court affirmed that promoting trade, commerce, and industries is an ‘object of general public utility,’ as it fosters economic prosperity benefiting the broader community. Key legal principles established include: (1) charitable purpose under the Act encompasses objects of general public utility beyond traditional relief; (2) incidental benefits to members do not invalidate charitable status if the primary aim is public benefit; (3) objects need not specify exact methods to be valid; and (4) incidental political activities (e.g., lobbying) do not negate charitable character. This decision reinforces a broad interpretation of ‘charitable purpose’ in tax exemptions, favoring institutions that advance public welfare through economic development.

In this landmark Supreme Court judgment, the Revenue successfully appealed against the High Court’s decision regarding computation of managing agents’ commission. The Court held that under a 1936 managing agency agreement providing for commission based on ‘annual net profits’, excess profits tax must be deducted before calculating commission. The ratio decidendi establishes that where an agreement creates a profit-sharing arrangement, ‘net profits’ should be interpreted as ‘divisible profits’ – those profits actually available for distribution between the parties after accounting for statutory impositions like excess profits tax. This judgment provides crucial guidance on interpreting commercial agreements in tax contexts.

In this landmark transfer pricing dispute, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, delved into the intricacies of comparable selection for benchmarking international transactions. The case involved Logitech Engineering & Design India P. Ltd., a captive service provider, challenging adjustments made by the TPO and DRP for software development and market support services. The Tribunal’s ruling reinforces critical transfer pricing principles: functional comparability overrides mere numerical benchmarking; turnover filters are essential to ensure parity between large diversified entities and niche captive units; and consistency in applying filters (like RPT and export thresholds) is mandatory. By meticulously analyzing each contested comparable and citing a robust body of case law, the Tribunal provided clarity on excluding giants like Infosys and including functionally aligned SMEs, setting a precedent for similar disputes in the IT/ITES sector. The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in curbing arbitrary adjustments and promoting equitable transfer pricing practices.

In this writ petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the assessee’s challenge to a penalty show cause notice under Sections 271D/271E, ruling it was not time-barred. The Court clarified that penalty proceedings for violations of Sections 269SS/269T are independent of assessment proceedings and can only be initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The earlier notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner during assessment was merely investigatory and did not constitute valid initiation of penalty proceedings. Therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(C) began only when the Joint Commissioner issued the notice on 22.9.2017, rendering it valid. This judgment reinforces the exclusive jurisdictional authority under penalty provisions and distinguishes between assessment and penalty proceedings.

In this landmark judgment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, the Revenue’s appeal against deletion of an addition under section 68 was dismissed. The Tribunal meticulously examined the evidence, affirming that the assessee, Zimkele Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., had conclusively proven the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share application money received from eight companies. Key documents included PAN details, tax returns, audited financials, and bank statements, with investments duly reflected in the applicants’ books. The AO’s allegations of paper companies were deemed unsubstantiated, lacking empirical support. The decision reinforces the judicial precedent that once the tripartite test under section 68 is satisfied, additions cannot be upheld, providing clarity for taxpayers on compliance standards in share capital transactions.

In this landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court clarified the scope of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, which disallows deductions for payments (interest, salary, etc.) made by a firm to its partners. The Court held that the prohibition is absolute and applies irrespective of the capacity (e.g., as an individual or as a Karta of an HUF) in which a partner receives the payment or the source of funds (personal or HUF) on which interest is paid. The decision reinforces that the legal identity of the partner under partnership law governs section 40(b), and beneficial ownership considerations are separate for assessment purposes. This prevents firms from circumventing disallowance by routing payments through different capacities of the same partner.

In a landmark judgment by a Constitution Bench, the Supreme Court has authoritatively settled a long-standing controversy regarding the limitation period for issuing a declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that the prescribed period—three years or one year from the date of the section 4(1) notification—is mandatory and peremptory. Crucially, it ruled that if a section 6 declaration is quashed by a court, the State Government does not get a fresh or extended limitation period to issue a new declaration. The only exclusion permitted by the statute (Explanation 1) is for periods when proceedings are formally stayed by a court. The judgment overrules prior conflicting decisions that had allowed a new period to run from the date of the court’s quashing order, clarifying that such an interpretation impermissibly rewrites the statute. The decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory text in limitation matters and limits judicial expansion of statutory timelines. However, applying principles of prospective overruling and finality, the Court protected acquisitions where awards have been made and compensation paid.