RNM Tax Alert DT-Oct 2025

• CBDT further extends due date for filing audit reports for AY 2025-26; also extends ITR filing due date

The CBDT vide Press release dated 29.10.2025; has further extended the due date for filing various audit reports, which was originally due on September 30, 2025, to November 10, 2025. The due date for filing the return of income in audit cases has also been extended from October 31, 2025, to December 10, 2025.

• NOTIFICATION S.O. 4901(E), NO. 155/2025/F. NO. CB/362/2025-O/O ADDL. DIT 6 CPC BENGALURU-187/10/2024-ITA-I]  DATED 27-10-2025

That the CBDT authorizes designated Income-Tax Authority to rectify apparent mistakes under section 154 and issue demand notices under section 156 in all cases processed through CPC interface in respect of all incomes

• Govt. notifies revised India-Qatar DTAA effective from FY 2026-27 [NOTIFICATION NO. 154/2025]

The Government of India has notified the revised Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with the Government of the State of Qatar. The revised Article 11(3) clarified that the term “State” includes the RBI and EXIM Bank for India, and the Qatar Investment Authority and Qatar Holding LLC for Qatar.

Important Judicial Precedents

• Rate of tax on LTCG for companies opting u/s 115BAA is 22% and not 20% under sec. 112:ITAT

[2025] 179 taxmann.com 698 (Delhi – Trib.) Maharishi Education Corporation P. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer

Where assessee company opted for taxation under section 115BAA, rate of tax applicable in respect of total income, including Long Term Capital Gain, would be 22 percent as per section 115BAA and not 20 percent under section 112.

• No contempt if AO passed order in light of CBDT circular to deposit 20% of demand for grant of stay: HC

[2025] 179 taxmann.com 279 (Delhi-HC) Court on its Own Motion vs. Anuradha Misra

Where Principal Commissioner rejected stay application filed by assessee and directed assessee to deposit 20 per cent of demand raised in assessment orders, since decision taken by Principal Commissioner was not bereft of reasons, albeit, such reasons were brief and not elaborate and order did reflect due application of mind on part of Principal Commissioner, there was no wilful disobedience of earlier court order and contempt proceedings were to be dropped.

• SLP dismissed; HC held delay under 148A(b) to be computed from first notice, making it within sec. 149 time limit.

[2025] 179 taxmann.com 341 (SC) Chandra Shekhar vs. PCIT 1

SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee was issued notice under section 148A(b) on 28-3-2024 and pursuant to assessee’s reply another notice was issued on 22-4-2024, delay was required to be taken note of with reference to first notice and thus, same was within time limit stipulated under section 149.

• TDS credit to be allowed to employee as tax was deducted by employer even if not deposited to govt: ITAT

[2025] 179 taxmann.com 134 (Bangalore – Trib.) Mrs. Antaash Sheikh vs. ITO

Where employer deducted TDS from assessee’s salary but did not deposit it to government, resulting in no TDS credit in Form 26AS, since assessee claimed TDS credit based on salary slips, assessee could not be denied TDS credit merely due to employer’s fault.

• HC quashes order as assessee wasn’t given adequate time to respond to notice issued for reassessment

[2025] 179 taxmann.com 281 (Gujarat-HC) Atul Mahavirprasad Paldecha vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(6)

Where assessee was issued a notice under section 148A(b) alleging bogus sales transactions and was directed to furnish reply by certain date, since assessee was allowed only four days to respond to notice which was contrary to minimum required statutory period of seven days as mandated under section 148A(b), impugned order passed under section 148A(d) as well as notice issued under section 148 were required to be quashed and set-aside.

• Property bought in spouse’s name doesn’t deny sec. 54 exemption if own funds used: ITAT

[2025] 179 taxmann.com 262 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel vs. ITO

Where investment in new residential property is made by assessee from his own funds, mere fact that property is purchased in name of spouse does not disentitle assessee from exemption under section 54.

• SLP dismissed; reopening invalid as AO relied solely on DRI information without independent application of mind

[2025] 179 taxmann.com 255 (SC) ACIT vs. Tungabhadra Minerals (P.) Ltd

SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where reason for reopening was recorded only on borrowed information from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and there was no independent application of mind on part of Assessing Officer to come to his own conclusion that income escaped assessment, reopening of assessment was not permissible.

• HC set-aside final assessment order passed by Faceless Officer without serving draft order on assessee

[2025] 179 taxmann.com 582 (Bombay-HC) Barentz India (P.) Ltd. vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

Where a final assessment order had been directly passed by Faceless Officer without serving a draft assessment order on assessee to enable it to approach DRP, it was in clear violation not only of provisions of section 144C but also of section 144B(1)(xxi) to (xxix) and thus, final assessment order was to be set aside.

Related Services: Direct Tax Services