S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent establishment-Test of “virtual projection” cannot be applied on perception or theory-Liaison office and wholly-owned subsidiary do not constitute PE in absence of evidence of disposal, control or authority to conclude contracts-Onus on Revenue to establish existence of PE-Subsidiary carrying on independent business on principal-to-principal basis-No fixed place or dependent agent PE-Interest on delayed consideration taxable-Supply of software not royalty or FTS under-DTAA-India-Finland. (1985) 152 ITR (St.) 57). [S. 90(2), Art. 5(8)]

S. 254(2): Rectification of mistake apparent on record – Subsequent judgment of Supreme Court cannot be ground for recall/rectification – Tribunal having followed binding jurisdictional High Court judgment at the time of passing original order – No mistake apparent from record – Miscellaneous Application dismissed. [S. 36(1)(va), 43B]

S. 226:Collection and mode of recovery – Recovery of tax –Pendency of appeal before CIT( A) – Stay of demand – Non-speaking order – Application of mind – Principles of natural justice – Allowing the writ, the Court held that the order rejecting the assessee’s stay application was a non-speaking order passed without considering the submissions made by the assessee- The matter was remanded to the Principal Commissioner for fresh consideration after granting a hearing and by passing a reasoned speaking order- Till disposal of the stay application afresh, the Revenue was restrained from taking any coercive recovery action. [ S. 220(6), 226(3),250, Art. 226]

S. 154: Rectification – Mandatory requirement of DIN – Back-dated rectification order – Limitation – Violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 – Order deemed never issued – Writ maintainable despite alternate remedy. [S. 119, 154(3), 154(7), 250, 292B, Art. 226]

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases –Information from Sales- Tax Department – Failure to prove genuineness of purchases –Order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that only profit estimation at 12. 5% was set aside – Order of the Assessing Officer confirming the addition of entire purchases a bogus under section 69C of the Income -tax Act was affirmed by High Court – SLP of assessee dismissed . [S.69C 133(6), 143(3), 144, 147, 148, Art . 136 ]

S. 261 : Appeal – Supreme Court -Limitation : Condonation of delay – Strictures -Departmental delay of 524 days – Unsatisfactory explanation – Internal procedural delays such as multiple scrutiny reports, repeated vetting and lack of timely direction for filing SLP held to be avoidable – However, considering that other matters on similar issue were already entertained, Supreme Court condoned the delay as a special case and directed tagging with Civil Appeal No. 1294 of 2015 [ Art. 136]

56: Income from Other Sources – Stamp duty valuation – Difference between agreement date and registration date – Allotment letter treated as “agreement” – Part consideration paid through banking channel before agreement – Stamp duty valuation to be adopted as on date of allotment – Addition deleted.[ S. 50C ,56(2)(vii)( b).]

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Faceless regime – Notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after 01.04.2022-Held to be valid – The Court clarified that paragraph 3 of the Scheme requires only automated allocation, not faceless issuance – Writ petitions dismissed – Not followed Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/ 464 ITR 430 / 338 CTR 536 (Bom)(HC ) . [S. 119 120, 124, 144B, 147, 148 148A, 151A, Art . 226 ]

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus Purchases – Accommodation entries Assessing Officer disallowed 100% purchases as bogus purchases – CIT( A) restricted the disallowance to 8% of purchases against 100% of disallowed by the Assessing Officer – on appeal by Revenue the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and confirmed 100% of bogus purchases . [ S. 37, 68, 143(3), 147, 148 ]

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Benami transactions-Change of law Order passed by Tribunal allowing assessees’ appeals following Supreme Court ruling to effect that amendments brought in 2016 did not have retrospective effect Pendency of review petition before Supreme Court not ground to disturb order of Tribunal-But Department given liberty to proceed based on outcome of review petition filed before Supreme Court.[Art. 226]