{"id":311934,"date":"2024-01-22T11:00:46","date_gmt":"2024-01-22T05:30:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=311934"},"modified":"2024-01-31T14:33:13","modified_gmt":"2024-01-31T09:03:13","slug":"income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 u\/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed against the orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) (‘impugned orders’) regarding the taxability of total license fee earned in respect of live telecast as royalty; the Division Bench of Yashwant Varma<\/span> and Girish Kathpalia<\/span>, JJ., upheld the impugned orders and held that the income of respondent towards live transmission could not be classified as ‘royalty income’ under Section 9(1)(vi)<\/a> of the Income Tax Act, 1961<\/a> (‘the Act’).<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

Respondent, Fox Network Group Singapore Pte Ltd. entered into a tripartite agreement titled as the ‘Novation Agreement’ with ESS Singapore (‘ESS’) and Star India Private Limited (‘SIPL’) which novated all the existing agreements between SIPL and ESS regulating the distribution of channels, advertisement sales, license agreements and other aspects governing the contractual relationship between them.<\/p>\n

For Assessment Year 2015-16 (‘AY’), respondent had in return of income offered Rs 65,44,67,199 as royalty income, subject to tax in terms of the provisions contained in Section 9(1)(vi)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. The income was stated to be earned from sublicensing of broadcasting ‘non-live’ content as per the Master Rights Agreement (‘MRA’) which formed part of the Novated Agreement.<\/p>\n

Respondent was asked to furnish an explanation as only Rs 65,44,67,199 was offered to tax as royalty out of total license fee earned. Respondent submitted that out of gross consideration of Rs 1181.63 crores which was earned from sub-licensing of sports broadcasting rights, it had earned Rs 65,44,67,199 from ‘non-live’ feed and that the balance amount of Rs 1115.91 crores was attributable to ‘live’ feed which would not fall within the ambit of Section 9(1)(vi)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. It was further contended, referring to Novation Agreement that in the bifurcation of the royalty earned in the ratio of 95% and 5%, only 5% was liable to be recognized as revenue generated from ‘non-live’ feed.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the contention of appellant that the ratio adopted for bifurcation of income was either unsubstantiated or arbitrary had no merit.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Commissioner of Income Tax<\/span> v. Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.<\/span>, 2014 SCC Online Del 7619<\/a>, and opined that once the Court had concluded that a live telecast would not fall within the ambit of the expression ‘work’, it would be erroneous to hold that the income derived by respondent in respect of ‘live feed’ would fall within Clause (v) of Expression 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.<\/p>\n

The Court further took note of the submission of appellant that respondent’s revenue earned from ‘live feed’ would be taxable in accordance with Clause (i) of Explanation 2 to Section (9)(1)(vi) of the Act and opined that the explanation covered the activity of transmission by satellite. However, in the instant case, appellant admitted that the actual transmission of content was undertaken by SIPL and not by respondent. Thus, the explanation did not detract from the opinion of ITAT.<\/p>\n

The Court upheld that the impugned orders and further held that the fees received by respondent towards live transmission could not be classified as royalty income under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.<\/p>\n

[CIT-International Taxation v. Fox Network Group Singapore Pte Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 433<\/a>, Order dated: 05-01-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellant: Ruchir Bhatia, Puneet Rai, SSC; Ashvini Kumar and Rishabh Nangia, St. Counsels; Deeksha Gupta, Advocate<\/p>\n

For the Respondent: Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate; Ashok Mathur, Divesh, Saurabh Jain and Sandy Sharma, Advocates<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Once it is concluded that a live telecast will not fall within the ambit of the expression “work”, it will be wholly erroneous to hold that the income derived by the assessee in respect of “live feed” will fall within clause (v) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":303940,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2543,2592,13081,64576,64518,64575,64577,34927],"class_list":["post-311934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-Income_Tax","tag-income-tax-act","tag-live-feed","tag-live-telecast","tag-royalty-income","tag-section-91vi","tag-transmission"],"yoast_head":"\nIncome derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 under Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi HC | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that the income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 was not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 under Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 u\/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that the income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 was not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 under Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-01-22T05:30:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-01-31T09:03:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 u\/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 under Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi HC | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-01-22T05:30:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-01-31T09:03:13+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court held that the income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 was not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 under Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"delhi high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 u\/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 under Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi HC | SCC Blog","description":"Delhi High Court held that the income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 was not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 under Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 u\/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court","og_description":"Delhi High Court held that the income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 was not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 under Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-01-22T05:30:46+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-01-31T09:03:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 u\/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/","name":"Income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 under Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi HC | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2024-01-22T05:30:46+00:00","dateModified":"2024-01-31T09:03:13+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court held that the income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 was not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 under Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"delhi high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/22\/income-derived-from-transmission-of-live-feed-not-taxable-as-royalty-income-under-income-tax-act-dhc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Income derived from transmission of \u2018live feed\u2019 not taxable as \u2018royalty income\u2019 u\/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":268635,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/18\/mad-hc-decides-on-includability-of-royalty-guarantee-commission-in-business-profit-for-the-purpose-of-calculation-of-deduction-under-s-80-hhc-of-it-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":311934,"position":0},"title":"Mad HC decides on includability of royalty \/ guarantee commission in business profit for the purpose of calculation of deduction under S 80 HHC of IT Act","author":"Editor","date":"June 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: A Division Bench of R Mahadevan and Sathya Narayan Prasad, JJ. dismissed the tax appeal holding that guarantee commission as well as royalty must be excluded from the business profit for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\u00a0\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":371254,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/30\/del-hc-icc-sponsorship-payments-taxable-royalty-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":311934,"position":1},"title":"Part of ICC Sponsorship Payments, for using ICC Trademark, constitutes Taxable Royalty: Delhi High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"December 30, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court held that the revisional authority was justified in concluding that the payment had two distinct elements, i.e., advertisement and trademark usage.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"ICC Sponsorship Payments","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/blog-29-11.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/blog-29-11.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/blog-29-11.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/blog-29-11.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":310367,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/29\/delhi-hc-upholds-constitutional-validity-of-section-115bbe-of-income-tax-act-1961-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":311934,"position":2},"title":"Delhi HC upholds constitutional validity of Section 115BBE of Income Tax Act, 1961; Says \u2018cannot be held unconstitutional on apprehension of misuse\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"December 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is settled law that the Act provides a complete machinery for assessment or re-assessment of tax and the assessee is not permitted to abandon that machinery to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":352572,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/06\/latest-cases-income-tax-laws-reported-in-itr\/","url_meta":{"origin":311934,"position":3},"title":"Cases Reported in ITR| Latest Cases on Income Tax Laws","author":"Shikha","date":"July 6, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Explore the latest cases reported in Income Tax Reports (ITR) Volume on Return of Income, Royalty, Exemptions, Investment business, Reassessment, Appeal and much more.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Latest Cases on Income Tax Laws","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Latest-Cases-on-Income-Tax-Laws.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Latest-Cases-on-Income-Tax-Laws.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Latest-Cases-on-Income-Tax-Laws.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Latest-Cases-on-Income-Tax-Laws.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":372358,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/12\/del-hc-8-year-delay-income-tax-refund-to-microsoft\/","url_meta":{"origin":311934,"position":4},"title":"Delhi HC slams Income Tax Department for 8-Year delay in Refund to Microsoft; orders refund of \u20b95.37 Crore with interest","author":"Ritu","date":"January 12, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Income Tax Department officers\u2019 \u201cutterly negligent attitude\u201d compelled the petitioner to approach the Court.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"refund to Microsoft","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/refund-to-Microsoft.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/refund-to-Microsoft.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/refund-to-Microsoft.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/refund-to-Microsoft.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338821,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/himachal-pradesh-hc-grants-relief-assessee-non-compliance-with-twin-conditions-under-s-127\/","url_meta":{"origin":311934,"position":5},"title":"\u2018Twin Conditions under S. 127 of Income Tax Act was not complied with\u2019; Himachal Pradesh HC grants relief to assessee whose tax assessment was wrongly transferred","author":"Editor","date":"January 10, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA valuable right of assessee is clearly involved in the matter, when he objected to jurisdiction of the assessing officer and transfer of his case, which obviously could not have been adjudicated upon without affording an opportunity of hearing and disclosing to him the reasons for not accepting his point\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Himachal Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/311934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=311934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/311934\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/303940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=311934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=311934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=311934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}