Direct Tax Updates for June 2025
CBDT notified ‘376’ as Cost Inflation Index (CII) for Financial Year 2025-26
The CBDT vide Notification No. 70/2025, dated 01-07-2025, has notified ‘376’ as the Cost Inflation Index (CII) for the Financial Year 2025-26.
CIRCULAR F. NO. 225/37/2025/ITA-I, DATED 13-6-2025
The CBDT vide circular dated 13.06.2025; issues guidelines for mandatory selection of returns for complete scrutiny in FY 2025-26.
Important Judicial Precedents
Delay in filing audit report in Form 10B couldn’t be a bar to claim lawful exemption u/s 11: ITAT
[2025] 175 taxmann.com 282 (Delhi – Trib.) Sampoorna Seva Charitable Trust vs. ITO
Where assessee, a charitable institution, filed audit report in Form 10B belatedly, since conditions of filing Form 10B are directory in nature and not mandatory, mere delay in filing Form 10B cannot be a bar to assessee claiming lawful exemption under section 11.
AO can’t proceed further and make assessment if he was not vested with jurisdiction as per PAN jurisdiction: HC
[2025] 175 taxmann.com 820 (Calcutta-HC) PCIT vs. Rohit Baid
Section 148, read with section 120, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Issue of notice for (Jurisdiction) – Assessment year 2015-16 – Whether notice under section 148 issued by an Assessing Officer not vested with jurisdiction as per PAN jurisdiction renders reassessment proceedings void – Held, yes – Whether CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, being an administrative guideline for equitable distribution of workload among Assessing Officers, does not confer or override statutory jurisdiction under section 120 – Held, yes [Paras 3 to 5] [In favour of assessee].
SLP dismissed against ruling that interest paid on loan taken for acquiring agricultural land wasn’t allowable as deduction
[2025] 174 taxmann.com 695 (SC) Mini Muthoottu Credit India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT
SLP dismissed as withdrawn against order of High Court that where assessee-company acquired land for business purposes by taking loan however said land was used for agricultural purposes, which yielded agricultural income, interest paid in respect of loan could not be allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii).
CSR donations made to registered trust eligible for sec. 80G deduction even if sec. 37(1) disallows CSR exp.: ITAT
[2025] 175 taxmann.com 694 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) Vimal Coal (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT
Where assessee, engaged in coal trading, suo motu disallowed CSR expenses under section 37(1) but claimed deduction under section 80G for donations made to registered trusts through verifiable channels not covered by section 80G(2) exclusions, such deduction was allowable.
Payments made towards internet, broadband and bandwidth charges to foreign parties didn’t constitute royalty; no TDS u/s 195
[2025] 175 taxmann.com 411 (Mumbai – Trib.) DCIT vs. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd
Assessee, engaged in providing information technology and information technology-enabled services, made payments of Rs. 7.65 crores towards internet, broadband and bandwidth charges to foreign parties – Assessing Officer held that said payments constituted ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) and attracted TDS under section 195, and accordingly disallowed same under section 40(a)(i) – Assessing Officer further made an additional disallowance of Rs. 3.94 crores, comprising payments made in India (on which TDS was deducted) and payments made by assessee’s overseas branch (on which tax was paid as per Philippine tax law) – Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both disallowances holding that impugned payments were not in nature of ‘royalty’ and did not require deduction of tax at source under section 195 – Whether disallowances under section 40(a)(i) were rightly deleted on ground that impugned payments did not constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) and, therefore, did not attract TDS under section 195 – Held, yes [Para 10] [In favour of assessee]
Matter remanded to allow sec. 54F relief as assessee inadvertently claimed it as sec. 54 in return: ITAT
[2025] 175 taxmann.com 374 (Patna – Trib.) Seema Srivastava vs. ITO
Where assessee had purchased a residential house and submitted capital gains computation, mere typographical error in claiming deduction under section 54 instead of section 54F did not disentitle her from relief and limitation of claiming deduction in return applies only to Assessing Officer and not to Appellate Authority which can allow correct claim if facts on record support it.
HC set aside order as AO passed it without granting time for filing reply and without providing opportunity of personal hearing
[2025] 175 taxmann.com 792 (Madras-HC) Manoj Kiron Kumar Lulla vs. Assessment Unit, National E. Assessment Centre
Where assessee requested an extension to file reply to show cause notice as his Authorised Representative was hospitalized due to which assessee was unable to collect all supporting documents, however Assessing Officer passed assessment order without granting time for filing reply and without providing opportunity of personal hearing, impugned order was to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice.
Loss on account of invocation of guarantee given to bank for loan availed by sister concern was allowable as deduction: HC
[2025] 175 taxmann.com 274 (Madras-HC) CIT vs. Star Investments (P.) Ltd
Where assessee, an investment company, promoted a company (BICL) which availed loan from ICICI and assessee pledged its shares to ensure loan repayment by BICL and later BICL paid only part of amount and assessee decided to write off unpaid amount as bad debts, loss incurred by assessee was for business expediency of group company and thus, should be treated as having been incurred for purpose of business and directly relatable to business of assessee and eligible for deduction as loss or bad debt.
Services rendered by a Co. providing management and governance support functions to its AE couldn’t be considered as FTS
[2025] 175 taxmann.com 351 (Delhi-HC) AECOM Intercontinental Holdings UK Ltd. vs. Income-tax Office
Where assessee, a UK based company, provided management and governance supports functions to its Indian AE, since services rendered did not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes to AE, same could not be considered as FTS.
Where assessee, a UK based company, provided IT infrastructure and software development services to its Indian AE, since AE did not acquire any copyright in software, cross charges paid by Indian AE could not be construed as royalty within scope of article 13(3) of India-UK DTAA.
Related Services – Direct Tax and Income Tax Services or Complete Taxation Services