Under Rule 10B (2) (c) the comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction has to be judged with reference to the contractual terms. Accordingly, the actual transaction, as entered into between the parties, has to be considered and the authorities have no right to re-write the transaction unless it is held that it is sham or bogus or entered into by the parties in bad faith to avoid and evade taxes.

In order to attract the non-discrimination clause in Article 26, mere differential treatment is not enough. The assessee has to show that not only has it been subjected to differential treatment vis-à-vis others but also that the ground for this differentiation in treatment is unreasonable, arbitrary or irrelevant and that the basis of differentiation lacks any coherent relationship with the object sought to be achieved by that provision.

As the 3rd Provio to s. 245 (2A) {restricting the right of the Tribunal to grant stay beyond 365 days even if the delay is not attributable to the assessee} comes into force on 1.10.2008, there is no bar on the Tribunal before that date to grant stay beyond 365 days.

However, where such gain relates to exports made in an earlier year, the deuction u/s 80HHC is allowable only in the year in which the exports are made and not in the year of realisation of the gain.

Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that s. 292BB was procedural and prospective.

Where the assessee, a Korean company, had entered into two contracts, one for on-shore execution of a fiber optic system and the other for offshore supply and services and it had a project office in India and the question arose whether any part of the profits from offshore supply was taxable in India, HELD:

Where the assessee transferred its undertaking under a scheme of demerger which provided that neither the assessee nor its shareholders would receive any consideration from the transferee company as the value of the liabilities taken over were more than the value of the assets taken over and the assessee treated the difference between the said liabilities and assets as a capital reserve and the question arose whether such difference was assessable to tax, Held:

Of the two formulas available, the formula adopted by the assessee, i.e. of taking the difference between the indexed book value on the date of conversion and the sale proceeds as long-term capital gains, being beneficial to the assessee, should be adopted. No part of the gains can be assessed as business income.

Where the AO had granted deduction under sections 80HH & 80-I in the year of formation of the new industrial undertaking, he could not, in a subsequent year, deny the deduction on the ground that the conditions are not fulfilled, if he has not withdrawn the deduction granted in the earlier year.

Where the assessee had earned freight income by transporting cargo in international traffic through ‘slot charter’ arrangements on ships owned by other enterprises and the question arose whether such profits arose from “operation of ships”, held: that in view of the OECD Commentary, Article 9 of the India-UK DTAA must be interpreted as applying not only to income arising directly from the operation of ships but also to income arising from ancillary operations such as transportation of cargo through ships owned by other enterprises.