As Colin Davie was not a performer, his income was not covered under Article 18 of the DTAA but was covered by Article 7 and as the services were rendered outside India and there was no PE, the same was not assessable to tax in India. Even under the Act, by virtue of Carborandum Co 108 ITR 335 (SC), Circular No. 17 of 1953 dated 17.7.1953 & Circular No.786 dated 7.2.2000, commission paid to agents for services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India and there is no obligation to deduct tax u/s 195

Prior to the concept of dematerialisation, a valid pledge of shares could be created by delivery of the shares to the pawnee either physically or constructively. With respect to demateriaized shares, though s.12 of the DP Act provides for the manner of creating a pledge, this is not the only method. Dematerialized shares continue to be “goods” and the law laid down in the Companies Act and the Sale of Goods Act for deciding whether a sale of shares has taken place or not will continue to govern

The argument of the revenue on the basis of Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Del) that non-making of inquiry by the AO is sufficient to justify action u/s 263 is not acceptable in view of the later decision in Vikas Polymers (Del) where it was held that the fact that the AO has not applied his mind to the issue may mean that the order is erroneous but it does not necessarily mean that the order is also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The CIT should apply his mind to the information provided by the assessee in the course of the revisional proceedings and record a finding instead of simply remanding the matter to the AO for examination

The second requirement of s. 41(1) is also not satisfied because in paying the NPV of the sales-tax liability, the assessee has paid the equivalent of the Future Value of the sum. As the sum of Rs. 3,37,13,393 is the NPV of the future sum of Rs.7,52,01,378 and its payment discharges the full liability, there is no remission or cessation of liability by the State Govt. It is a simple case of collecting the amount at net present value which is due later on (principles of s. 63 of the Contract Act applied)

The argument of the revenue that the abnormal debt-equity ratio attracts the “Thin Capitalization Rule” and that the “debt” should be characterized as “equity” for purposes of considering whether interest is deductible is not acceptable. Several countries have detailed “thin capitalization rules” (e.g. Belgium). However, there are no such rules in India though the DTC 2010 has proposed this vide s. 123(1)(f). In the absence of specific “thin capitalization” rules, it is not open to the revenue to characterize debt as equity and disallow the interest (principles in Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) followed)