The department has the option u/s 166 to assess either the non-resident principal or the representative assessee. Once the choice is made and the income is brought to tax in the hands of the principal, the same income cannot be again assessed u/s 163 in the hands of a representative assessee (Saipem UK 298 ITR (AT) 113 (Mum) followed). Consequently, the assessment order on the agent had to be annulled

The warrant of authorization u/s 132 was issued in the name of “K. M. Shah Charitable Trust, Mansukhbhai K. Shah“. This cannot be regarded as a warrant of authorization issued in the name of assessee in his individual capacity. The search cannot be regarded as conducted against the assessee in his individual capacity. The assessee’s name appears in the warrant and panchnama as the Managing Trustee of the Trust and not in his individual capacity. When a warrant is issued in joint names, an assessment in individual capacity/status is invalid (Vandana Verma (All) followed). Consequently, the s. 153A proceedings were invalid

The argument of the Revenue that there is a “Dependent Agent PE” under Article 5(4)(b) is also not correct. The rationale of a Dependent Agent PE is that the foreign enterprise carries on business through a dependent agent, who is integrated into the principal’s business to a substantial extent. However, on facts, as Jet Airways was neither the dependent agent of the assessee and nor was the assessee carrying on business through Jet Airways, there was no PE under Article 5(4)(b)

The argument that in using the words “in the Contracting State“, Article 12(4) incorporates the “place of performance test” and negates the “source rule” and that services rendered offshore are not taxable is not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, because the expression “provision for services” is wider than the term “provision for rendering of services” and covers services rendered in the one State but used in the other State. Secondly, because the interpretation will render Article 12(6) redundant. A literal interpretation to a tax treaty which renders a treaty provision unworkable should be avoided. (Principles of treaty interpretation reiterated)

S. 50C does not apply to all capital assets but only to “land or building”. A tenancy right is not “land or building” (It is “rights” in building). Consequently, s. 50C has no application and the capital gains have to be computed on the basis of the actual consideration and not the stamp duty value

In E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT 26 ITR 27, the Supreme Court held that two conditions are necessary for income to have “accrued to” or “earned by” an assessee viz. (i) the assessee has contributed to its accruing or arising by rendering services or otherwise, and (ii) a debt has come into existence and he must have acquired a right to receive the payment. In the present case, though a debt is created in favour of the assessee immediately on execution of the agreement, it cannot be said that the assessee has fully contributed to its accruing by rendering services because the assessee has a continuing obligation to provide accommodation to the members for one week every year till the currency of the membership. Till the assessee fulfils its promise, income has not accrued to it. Consequently, the entire amount of timeshare membership fee receivable by the assessee up front at the time of enrollment of a member is not chargeable to tax in the initial year on account of contractual obligation that is fastened to the receipt to provide services in future over the term of contract.

The decision in Gopal Purohit 122 TTJ 97 (affirmed in 228 CTR 582 (Bom)) is distinguishable because there the assessee had consistently been investing in shares and the ratio of sales to investment was very less and the LTCG was more than the STCG. Similarly Janak S. Rangwalla 11 SOT 627 (Mum) is also distinguishable on facts

Though there is no fixed formula to determine whether the activity of purchasing and selling shares can be treated as a trading activity or as investment activity, certain guiding principles have been laid down in CBDT’s Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15.6.2007 as well as in Gopal Purohit 122 TTJ 87 (Mum) (affirmed in 228 CTR 582 (Bom)), Saranath Infrastructure 120 TTJ 216 (Luck) and other judgements.

The argument of the assessee that to constitute a hedging transaction u/s 43(5)(b), a transaction need not be in the same shares held by the assessee as inventory or that the value of hedging transactions should be equal to or less than the value of inventory held by the assessee is not acceptable. Circular No. 23D dated 12-9-1960 makes it clear that bona fide hedging transactions shall not be regarded as speculative provided that the hedging transactions are up to the amount of his holdings and confined to shares in his holding. The value and volume of hedging transactions should be in equal proportion and the hedging transaction should be in respect of the same scripts held by the assessee