S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Assessee, a US company, was wholly owned subsidiary of an Indian company entered into an agreement with another US company to acquire patent and technical information related to manufacturing of two products belonging to said foreign company – Assessee got said products manufactured from its holding company in India and same were subsequently sold in US – This shows clear business connection with India – royalty paid by assessee to US company in terms of patent agreement was taxable in India under S. 9(1)(vi) of the Act.

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – In absence of furnishing any shred of credible evidence that shows direct involvement from Japan in making sales to customers in India estimation of rate of net profit at 10 per cent was reasonable and amount of net profit attributable to marketing activities carried out in India would be 30 per cent of amount of net profit relatable to sales in India- DTAA-India -Japan [ Art, 5, 7(a),( 7(c) ]

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Franchise of Dominos Pizza -Profit and loss from business belonged to Jubilant and no activities were carried out by jubilant on behalf of assessee, Jubilant did not constitute a Permanent Establishment of assessee in India hence not liable to tax in India -DTAA-India-UK [ Art.5 ]

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty or business profits – Income from supply of software embedded in hardware – Income relatable to supply of software cannot be treated as royalty income.[S.9(1)(i)]

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Sales tax incentive-Remanded to the file of AO .

S. 4:Charge of income- tax – Subsidy received from Government for setting up of an industry in the backward area was to be treated as a capital receipt.

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Receipt arising on extra sale value of sugar did not arise to Assessee since the receipt was cast with the obligation to pay the same to sugar factories and hence, it had to be diverted by overriding title—Difference in profit was not to be included as income in hands of assessee.

Interpretation-Precedent- Merely filing of an SLP would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in abeyance.

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction- Sanction granted by writing “Yes, I am satisfied” is not sufficient to comply with the requirement of s. 151 because it means that the approving authority has recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and without application of mind-Reassessment is bad in law . [ S.147, 148, 292B ]

S.147:Reassessment -If information is received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by AO, said information cannot be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis is not justified.[ S.148, 151 ]