RNM Tax Alert – Direct Tax Part for September 2025

• CBDT extends due date for filing tax audit report for AY 2025-26 to 31-10-2025

The CBDT vide Press release dated 25.09.2025; has extended the due date for furnishing the report of audit under any provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2025-26. The due date is extended to 31st October 2025.

• CIRCULAR NO. 13/2025 [F. NO. 275/09/2025-IT(BUDGET)], DATED 19-9-2025

The CBDT waives interest on demand raised due to disallowance of Sec. 87A rebate on income taxable at special rate. The interest payable under section 220(2) of the Act shall be waived in such cases where the payment of the demands raised, is made on or before 31.12.2025.

Important Judicial Precedents

• Deduction u/s 54F allowed as assessee’s delay in construction was due to reasons beyond his control: ITAT

[2025] 178 taxmann.com 543 (Delhi – Trib.) Rajni Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 3 (1)

Where assessee had intended to construct a residential house and invested whole purchase consideration in plot of land but it was beyond control of assessee to get plot of land to initiate construction of house on time and finally assessee had to forego rights of plot of land and invested recovered amount in new property, assessee would be eligible to claim deduction under section 54F.

• Provisional attachment u/s 281B lapses after six months without valid extension order: HC

[2025] 178 taxmann.com 502 (Kerala-HC) Brijesh M. vs. Income-tax Officer

Where assessee challenged provisional attachment of properties under section 281B on grounds that attachment continued beyond six months without valid extension, and respondents admitted that no extension order was passed, provisional attachment could not subsist and respondents were required to update land records accordingly.

• No penalty for concealment if additions were based on ad-hoc estimation of income: HC

[2025] 178 taxmann.com 458 (Bombay-HC) PCIT vs. Colo Colour (P.) Ltd

Where Assessing Officer made additions on alleged bogus purchases merely on estimate basis and by relying upon Sales Tax Department information not furnished to assessee, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

• Reassessment can’t be made on same facts already considered in original assessment: HC

[2025] 177 taxmann.com 701 (Gujarat-HC) Pacifica Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO

Where assessee sold ‘development rights’ in relation to certain pieces of land in two phases and Assessing Officer issued reopening notice on ground that while calculating profit earned by assessee in phase-1 cost of acquisition amounting to certain sum was deducted from amount received, and assessee had shown cost of land in inventories/work in progress which was either needed to be reduced from work in progress or cost of acquisition was not to be given, since reasons recorded for reopening were already considered by Assessing Officer in assessment order passed under section 143(3), impugned reopening notice was to be quashed and set aside.

• 6 years is a reasonable period for passing Sec. 201 order in case of non-deduction of TDS from non-residents: HC

[2025] 178 taxmann.com 268 (Madras-HC) Vedanta Ltd. vs. DCIT (International Taxation)

Where assessee was treated as ‘assessee-in-default’ for payments made to non-resident without deduction of tax at source, since orders under section 201 and 201(A) were passed beyond six years from end of relevant financial year, same were barred by limitation and liable to be set aside.

• Protective addition u/s 69A for cash deposits unjustified as substantive additions made in beneficiaries’ hands: ITAT

[2025] 178 taxmann.com 474 (Amritsar – Trib.) Mandeep Singh vs. Income-tax Officer

Where Assessing Officer added about Rs. 15 crores on protective basis in assessee’s hands under section 69A for cash deposits in a disputed bank account which assessee denied operating and substantive additions for same amount had already been made in hands of two other entities identified as actual beneficiaries, such protective addition was not legally justified and directed to be deleted.

• AO can’t question authenticity of Sec. 10AA claim in subsequent years if he accepted it in first year: ITAT

[2025] 178 taxmann.com 183 (Delhi – Trib.) Orient International vs. ACIT

Where Assessing Officer had given categorical finding in first year of business of assessee-company that assessee was altogether an independent unit and it had come into existence on totally new set off of plant and machinery and it had got nothing to do with bifurcation of any other existing company, in subsequent years, Assessing Officer could not deny claim of deduction made under section 10AA by assessee on ground that assessee was being used/misused by some other company in order to deviate its income/profit.