S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes-Providing systematic instructions or training which involves a process of teaching and learning amounts to “providing education” for purposes of section 2(15)-Mere generation of surplus would not be a ground to deny exemption to assessee under section 11 when the surplus so generated was used solely for educational purposes-Entitled to exemption. [S. 2(15), 12AA]

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Consideration received by a non-resident for enabling live telecast of cricket matches did not extend beyond live feed and involved no transfer of copyright or derivative exploitation rights-Not taxable as royalty-DTAA-India-Sri Lanka [Art. 12].

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Off-the-shelf sale or supply of software without transfer of copyright cannot be treated as royalty-Delay of 598 days-Condonation of delay refused-SLP of revenue dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art.12(3) Art. 136]

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent Establishment-Indian subsidiary carrying out onshore installation and promotional activities does not form a PE of the foreign parent where sales are concluded abroad-Software licensing fee without transfer of copyright is not royalty-DTAA-India-Italy-SLP dismissed. [S. 9(1)(vi), Art. 5, 13]

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Subsidy/Grant-in-aid-Government financial assistance granted under a specific rehabilitation scheme to clear liabilities and rescue a cooperative from a financial crisis constitutes a capital receipt. [S. 28(i)]

S. 282: Service of notice-Appellate Tribunal-Service of order of Tribunal-Service upon authorised representative-Limitation-Condonation of delay-Delay of 40 days-Condoned-Affidavit of Chartered Accountant-Section 254(3) of Act and Rule 35 of 1963 Rules mandate Tribunal to ensure service of order upon assessee. Service upon an authorised representative not substitute for service upon the assessee [S. 254 (3), 260A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Ο. 5, r. 12 Income-tax Act, 1961, 282 Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, r. 35 Information Technology Act, 2000, Chapter IV.]

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void-Provision applicable during pendency of any proceeding under Act or after completion thereof, but before service of notice by Tax Recovery Officer Transfer void as against any claim in respect of tax or other sum payable by assessee against claims enforceable under attachment-Transfer not completely unenforceable-Tax Recovery Officer does not have power to adjudicate on validity of transfer in favour of third party-Declaration by Tax Recovery Officer that mortgage by in favour of creditor was void ab initio-Not sustainable-Order of Tax Recovery Officer to that extent liable to be set aside-Transfer of property Equitable mortgage Mortgage by deposit of title deeds-Registration of mortgage not possible or required-Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds not document under which mortgage is created and, consequently, does not fall within scope of registration-Compulsory registration is necessary in Tamil Nadu-Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds not mentioning date of deposit of title deeds nor when money borrowed by assessee-Mortgagee not asserting that mortgage was created prior to date of service of notice-Date of creation of mortgage inferred to be subsequent date of receipt of notice Exemption as bona fide transferee without notice not available to mortgagee-Assessee required to obtain permission of Tax Recovery Officer before alienating property-In absence of such permission, assessee not competent to mortgage property-On or after date of notice, no process against property of assessee for enforcement of money decree may be issued by civil court Mortgage created after service of notice-Tax Recovery Officer entitled to proceed to recover arrears by sale of property and adjust tax dues out of sale proceeds-Any surplus shall be retained by him and paid to mortgagee. [S. 221, 281(1), Sch, II, r. 2, 3, 4, 11, 16, 48, 51, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 58(f), Indian Registration Act, 1908, S. 17(1)(b).

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Proven to be non-wilful and caused by circumstances beyond assessee’s control-The statutory presumption of culpable mental state under section 278E stood rebutted-Vitiating foundation necessary for conviction under section 276CC and justifying acquittal-Onus on assessee to establish beyond reasonable doubt that failure was not intentional-Acquittal by session judge was proper-Mere setting aside of penalty under section 271(1)(b) by an appellate authority does not, by itself, vitiate prosecution under section 276CC. [S. 132, 153A, 278E, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 378]

S. 276C: Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Compounding of offence-False verification-High Court holding assessee entitled to composition and directing the Department to compound offences-A compounding application under section 279(2) which was rejected by competent authority and thereafter, despite final directions of High Court, he was asked to pay compounding charges determined in accordance with revised Compounding Guidelines dated 17-10-2024, such demand was unsustainable and compounding fee was liable to be recomputed under CBDT Guidelines dated 16-5-2008.[S. 276C, 277, 279(1A), 279(2),279(6), Art. 226]

S. 276C: Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Contempt of court-Compounding of offences-Jurisdiction of court-Court cannot, in contempt jurisdiction, water down or dilute order of court by issuing fresh directions.-Single judge conclusively holding assessee entitled to compound offence and that decision of Supreme Court applicable to assessee-Department not appealing against order of single judge-Pursuant thereto Department again rejecting application for composition and single judge on assessee’s writ petition directing Department to compound Appeal to Division Bench-Assessee entitled to compound offence final in first round of litigation and Department not entitled to contend against it Bench will not consider question of assessee’s right to compound or applicability of circulars-Order of single judge affirmed.[S. 273A, 276C, 277, 279(1A), 279(2),Art. 226]