Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


DZ Bank AG-India Representative v. Dy.CIT (2020) 196 DTR 209 / 208 TTJ 1081 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Indian representative office and the bank itself are one unit-They are taxed only once-DTAA-India-German. [S. 2(31), 253, Art.7, 11]

Bengal Tiger Line PTE Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 196 DTR 305 / 208 TTJ 1125 (2021) 188 ITD 397 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Shipping business-Invocation of article 24 of India-Singapore DTAA not justified-Exemption under article 8 is allowed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 44B, 172, Art. 8, 24, Singapore Income-tax Act, S 13F]

Augustus Capital Pte Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 196 DTR 289 / 208 TTJ 1177 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Explanation 7 to section 9(1)(i) has a retrospective effect-Sale proceeds of shares of foreign company which held investment in India is not taxable. [S. 5]

Harshhvardhan Chhajed v. DGIT ( Raj )( HC ) www.itatonline .org

S. 132 : Search and seizure – Seizure of stock in trade – Seizure was held to be illegal – Directed to release the stock in trade and also directed to pay interest of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner [ S. 132 (4), 132B, Art , 226 ]

Paraminder Singh Kalra v. CIT (2020) 429 ITR 577 / 196 DTR 433 / 318 CTR 211 / (2021) 279 Taxman 316 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 276D : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to produce books of accounts-Documents-Three separate complaint were part of same transaction-Clubbing of complaints and joint trail was allowed. [S. 276C(1), 277, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.200]

Forzza Projects (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 279 Taxman 459 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Mere failure to pay income tax based on self assessment would not constitute offence-Proceedings was quashed. [S. 27C(2), 276CC, 278E]

Vedanta Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Under-invoicing-Justice Shah Commission report-Notice based on reports of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)-Assessment was completed without proper inquiries-Revision is held to be justified, it was competent for Commissioner to invoke revisional jurisdiction and direct fresh assessment.

CIT v. Bosch Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 422 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Scientific research-100 per cent EOUs-Expenditure on R&D claimed under section 35(2AB) had no connection whatsoever with 100 per cent EOUs-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 10B, 35(2AB)]

K. R. Satyanarayana v. CIT (2021) 279 Taxman 175 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business income or capital gains-Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 28(i), 45]

Socomec Innovative Power Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 279 Taxman 351 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Method for determination of Berry ratio-Tribunal had not given its own reasons for upholding said order of TPO, its order was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded. [S. 92C]