In this landmark judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court delineates the critical distinction between ‘income from house property’ and ‘business income’ under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court overturned the ITAT’s decision, holding that rental income from godowns let out incidentally by a tobacco export firm constitutes property income, not business income. The ruling reinforces the principle that ‘business’ necessitates continuous, systematic activity, and mere letting of commercial assets, without ongoing development or ancillary services, falls under Section 22. This decision provides clarity for firms and partnerships on the tax treatment of rental income from underutilized business assets, emphasizing substance over form in characterising income heads.

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India decisively addressed the interplay between statutory amendments and pre-existing approvals under tax incentive schemes. The case involved Prashanti Medical Services & Research Foundation, a charitable trust whose hospital project was approved under Section 35AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, enabling donors to claim deductions for contributions. The crux of the dispute arose from the insertion of sub-section (7) via the Finance Act, 2016, which prospectively disallowed such deductions from the assessment year 2018-19. The appellant argued for retrospective protection of its three-year approval, but the Court, upholding legislative supremacy, ruled that tax concessions are not vested rights and promissory estoppel does not apply against statutory amendments. The judgment reinforces the principle that tax laws operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise, providing clarity for taxpayers and authorities on the temporal application of fiscal changes. It underscores that equity cannot override clear legislative intent in tax matters, setting a precedent for similar disputes involving charitable deductions and statutory interpretations.

In this landmark ITAT Bangalore decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the primary issue, holding that lease rental income from a technology park is taxable as business income, not house property income, due to the integrated commercial nature of the operations. However, it dismissed the assessee’s cross-objections, upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings and classifying interest from surplus funds as income from other sources. The judgment reinforces the principle that income classification depends on the substantive nature of the activity, with significant implications for infrastructure and real estate developers claiming business income benefits.

In this landmark judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, ruled in favor of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., allowing the deduction of ERP and software implementation expenses as revenue expenditure and striking down the disallowance under Section 14A. The decision reinforces the principle that expenditure on standardized software, without ownership rights, does not confer an enduring benefit and is deductible. It also clarifies that Section 14A disallowances must be based on actual, proximately related expenses, not notional allocations, providing significant relief to taxpayers on both fronts.

In this landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court affirmed that charitable institutions registered under Sections 12AA and 10(23)(c) are entitled to claim depreciation under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without it constituting double deduction. The Court meticulously distinguished between the computation mechanisms under Chapter III (for trusts) and Chapter IV (for business income), emphasizing that depreciation is a legitimate deduction under commercial principles to determine real income. It rejected the Revenue’s reliance on Escorts Ltd., clarifying that the amendment under Section 11(6) is prospective, thus upholding the Tribunal’s decisions in favor of the assessees. This ruling reinforces the stability of tax treatment for charitable trusts and underscores the non-retroactive nature of the 2014 amendment.

In this landmark judgment, the Lahore High Court delineates the tax implications when a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) transitions into a corporate entity without complete partition. The Court establishes that while an HUF must disrupt entirely to be wholly replaced, partial succession to a limited company is legally tenable for separable business segments under Section 26(2) of the Income Tax Act 1922. This ruling clarifies that assessment can proceed against the successor company without fresh notice, leveraging the precedent of ongoing proceedings. The decision balances the statutory frameworks of Sections 25A and 26, affirming the Department’s authority to tax the successor on attributable income while recognizing the HUF’s continued status for other purposes. For tax professionals, this case underscores the nuanced treatment of hybrid entities in succession scenarios, emphasizing factual severability and procedural continuity in assessment.

In this landmark judgment, the Calcutta High Court deliberated on the critical distinction between capital and revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act 1922. The assessee, a public company, incurred Rs. 35,800 for securing an overdraft facility, claiming it as revenue expenditure deductible under s. 10(2)(xv). The Court, upholding the Tribunal’s decision, ruled it as capital expenditure. The ruling reinforces the principle that expenditure aimed at securing an enduring benefit to the trade, such as financial facilities enhancing business operations, is capital in nature. This decision is pivotal for tax professionals and businesses, clarifying that short-term loan arrangements do not automatically qualify as revenue expenditure if they provide lasting advantages. The Court’s analysis underscores the importance of evaluating the substantive benefit derived, rather than merely the loan’s tenure, in tax deduction claims.

In this landmark procedural ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court underscores the constitutional imperative for reasoned orders in tax adjudication. While the substantive dispute concerned the deductibility of production incentives under sections 37(1) or 43B of the Income Tax Act, the Court pivoted to a fundamental procedural flaw: the cryptic, non-speaking nature of both the CIT(A) and Tribunal orders. The judgment articulates a robust legal principle that the duty to give reasons flows from the rule of law and is essential for fair procedure, transparency, and effective judicial review. By setting aside the orders and remanding for fresh consideration, the Court prioritizes procedural integrity over immediate substantive resolution, reinforcing that tax authorities cannot decide rights of parties without demonstrating reasoned application of law to facts.