RNM Tax Alert – Direct Tax Part for May 2025
CBDT Extends Due Date of filing of ITRs which were due for filing by 31-7-2025
The CBDT vide Press Release dated 27-5-2025; extends due date of filing ITRs for AY 2025-26 from July 31, 2025 to Sep. 15, 2025.
CBDT updates ITR-U to allow filing of updated return up to 48 months, DATED 19-05-2025
The CBDT updates ITR-U to allow filing of updated return up to 48 months.
The CBDT notifies all ITR Forms; ITR-Ack applicable for AY 2025-26
Important Judicial Precedents
ITAT deleted sec. 68 additions as assessee duly submitted confirmation letter and bank statement before CIT(A)
[2025] 174 taxmann.com 929 (Delhi – Trib.) Rani Sati Surajgarhia Infrastructure Ltd. vs. DCIT
Where assessee had taken unsecured loans from K and AM and had submitted confirmation letter and also bank statement indicating transfer of funds through banking channel, and also explained source of source for same, vital ingredients of section 68, namely identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, were established, thus, impugned addition under section 68 in respect of said loans was to be deleted.
Common area maintenance charges paid to mall owner liable for TDS under section 194C: HC
[2025] 175 taxmann.com 35 (Delhi-HC) CIT (TDS)-1 vs. Liberty Retail Revolutions Ltd
Where assessee paid Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges to a company which operated a Mall, since CAM charges were not paid for use of land/building but were paid for carrying out work for maintenance of common area/facilities that were available along with lease premises, same could not be characterized and/or brought within meaning of ‘rent’ as defined in section 194-I and would fall within meaning of ‘work’ as defined under section 194-C.
SLP dismissed against ruling that AO couldn’t reopen assessment for additions made in sec. 143(3) order
[2025] 174 taxmann.com 543 (SC) Income-tax Officer vs. Hemanshu Ramniklal Shah
SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where assessment order under section 143(3) was passed, making additions to income of assessee under section 68 and subsequently, assessment was reopened on ground that assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all facts and details with regard to trading done through broker, since Assessing Officer was in possession of transaction details through broker at time of passing assessment order, impugned reopening notice was nothing but change of opinion and was not permissible in law.
Expenses incurred towards penalty and late fees for non-compliance with contract terms allowable as deduction: ITAT
[2025] 174 taxmann.com 793 (Mumbai – Trib.) G.L. Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT/National Faceless Appeal Centre/DCIT
Where assessee-company, engaged in road construction, claimed deduction for penalties imposed by government authorities during execution of contracts, since said expenses were incurred by assessee towards penalty and late fees which arose from contractual terms in normal course of business and were intended to preserve and facilitate business relationships with government entities, same same could not have been disallowed under section 37(1).
Notice under Section 153C invalid where no incriminating material found for relevant year: HC
[2025] 174 taxmann.com 347 (Delhi-HC) Rakesh Babbar vs. ACIT
Where search yield incriminating material with respect to assessee’s income for earlier assessment year and not relevant assessment year, Assessing Officer could not have issued notice under section 153C in respect of relevant assessment year.
Reassessment quashed as there was no tangible material to establish existence of PE in India: HC
[2025] 174 taxmann.com 460 (Delhi-HC) GE Renewables Grid LLC vs. ACIT
Where Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings against assessee, a US based company, on ground that assessee had fixed place PE and dependent agent PE in India and was, therefore liable to pay tax in India, since there was no tangible material to establish existence of a PE in India for relevant assessment years, impugned reassessment proceedings were to be quashed.
No FTS under India-Netherlands DTAA if no technology was made available to recipients of services: ITAT
[2025] 174 taxmann.com 611 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) Shell International B.V. vs. ACIT
Consideration received by assessee, a tax resident of Netherlands, for providing centralized support services including CHR Recruitment, External Information, Real Estate and Corporate Travel, Health Ecotox, IT services to its AEs, was not FTS under India-Netherlands DTAA since no technology was made available to recipients.
Sum received by Amazon for providing cloud computing services not taxable as royalty: HC
[2025] 174 taxmann.com 1188 (Delhi-HC) CIT, International Taxation -1 vs. Amazon Web Services, Inc
Where assessee, US company, provided cloud computing services to its customers, since assessee’s customers did not acquire any right of using infrastructure and software of assessee for purposes of commercial exploitation and charges paid by assessee’s customers were for availing services, which assessee provided by using its proprietary equipment and other assets, payments received could not be considered as royalties within meaning of article 12(3) of India- US DTAA.