S. 12AA : Procedure for registration-Trust or institution-Assessee society was established with the object of imparting education-earnings it received were also utilised for the purpose of advancement of education-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP of revenue dismissed.[S. 2(15), 10(23)(vi), Art. 136]

S. 9(1)(vi): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Global advertising and promotional rights, including a non-exclusive right to use ICC and event marks under an agreement with GCC Singapore-Consideration attributable to right to use such marks constituted ‘royalty’ within meaning of section 9(1)(vi) read with article 12 of India-Singapore DTAA, and apportionment of one-third of total consideration as royalty (taxable at DTAA rate) and balance as advertisement expenditure was valid-Writ petition was dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore.[S. 195, 264, Art. 12, Art. 226]

S. 9(1)(vi): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Payments made to non-resident telecom operators by assessee, for providing interconnect services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries was not chargeable to tax as royalty or fees for technical services-Order of High Court affirmed-Delay of 308, 457 and 473 days-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay and also on merits-OECD Model Convention, Art. 12. [S.9(1)(vii), Art. 136]

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent establishment-Service PE-Legal advisory services-Indian clients-44 days, excluding vacation-It did not meet 90 days criteria to constitute a service PE in India during the relevant year-Article 5(6) of the India, Singapore DTAA only contemplates rendering of services by employees present within country, concept of virtual service PE does not find mention in DTAA, thus cannot be read in to DTAA-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art. 5(6)]

Interpretation of taxing statutes-Strict interpretation-Precedent-Judgment based on old, broader law cannot be used to interpret new, stricter provision.[S.36(1)(vii)]

Interpretation of taxing statutes-Strict interpretation-Where words are plain and unambiguous, court bound to give effect to their plain meaning-Whether language is “plain and unambiguous” to be determined within context-Legislative intent-Crucial where language is ambiguous and capable of multiple constructions-Legislative purpose primarily to be gathered from specific words used by Legislature-Where language plain and unambiguous, court cannot read words into statute on notion that they would better serve legislative purpose-Aids to construction-Memorandum Explaining Provisions of Bill can be used to derive meaning of provision.[S.44C, 37 (1)]

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Block assessment-Search and seizure-Review of order-Substantial question of law framed as regards applicability of correct clause/sub-clause of any section/sub-section of section 158BB was not answered by the court while deciding the appeal; the same, in itself, could not be a ground to review the order. [S. 143, 158BB(1) 158BC, CPC, 1908, O XLVII, R 1]

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Substantial question of law-Question of law not earlier framed-Power to deal with necessary or incidental questions that arise-If parties had opportunity to address issues in dispute-Substantial question of law can be reframed. [Art. 136]

S. 255: Appellate Tribunal-Procedure-Functions-Strictures-Duties-Remarks and observations of court in respect of Members of Tribunal-Interim application by Judicial Member and Accountant Member seeking expunction of paragraph of court’s order containing detrimental remarks and observations causing harm to reputation-Paragraph of judgment containing remarks and observations expunged-Expunction of remarks not to be construed as comment with regard to merits of case.[S.254(1), 260A]

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Additional grounds-Challenge to validity of reassessment raised before Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected-Assessee in Department’s appeal filing application raising ground relating to validity of assessment-Tribunal justified in accepting ground and holding reassessment was on change of opinion and unsustainable in law.[S. 147, 148, (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, R. 27.]