S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-Commission-Required to promote, sell and distribute books and journals published by group company in print and electronic form-Not performing any executive or supervisory functions or rendering managerial services-No special skills or knowledge its personnel were required to possess to render services under the commissionaire agreement-Services rendered by assessee were not technical services and commission received not fees for technical services-Collecting subscription fees from various customers for subscribing to journals and books-Finding that content was standardised and not specifically collected or generated for any particular entity-Subscription fees not “fees for technical service”-Mere access to technical database or technical literature or sale of technical texts, information or research material collated by extensive research would not constitute rendering technical services [S. 9(1)(vii), Expln. 2.]

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution- Exemption – University wholly or substantially financed by Government – Grants received through UGC and capital grant in the form of land to be considered for determining 50 per cent threshold under Rule 2BBB – Exemption allowable –Quantum deleted- Penalty will not survive. [ S. 10(23C(iiiab ) ,270A, Rule 2BBB ]

S. 281B: Provisional attachment-Draconian provision; the minimum requirement is to afford an opportunity to the assessee to make payment in terms of CBDT Office Memorandums, and no presumption can be drawn that the assessee would not make payment-The attachment order was set aside with direction to the assessee to deposit 20 per cent of provisionally assessed demand within one week. [Art.226]

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Prosecution was directed to produce original documents for inspection during cross-examination-The cost of Rs. 5,000/-imposed by the Trial Court is set aside [S. 277, IPC 191, Indian Evidence Act, S.78, Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, S. 3, CRPC, 480]

S.270AA: Immunity from imposition of penalty,etc-Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Authority could not have proceeded to reject the application under Section 270AA before taking a final decision on imposition of penalty under Section 270A-The order was set aside with direction to the authority to consider objections and then take a final decision both on requisites under Section 270A and Section 270AA. [S.270A, Art. 226]

S. 270A: Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Commissioner-Revision of other orders-The assessee has discretion to either file an appeal under section 246A against an appealable order or to apply for revision under section 264. Therefore, where the assessee filed revision under section 264 against penalty order passed under Section 270A, and Commissioner summarily rejected revision without assigning reasons, said order was unsustainable-The penalty order was quashed and set aside. [S. 36(1)va), 143(1)(a), 143(3), 153A, 264(4), 271(1)(c), Art. 226]

S. 270A: Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Notices were not served-Violation of principles of natural justice-Proceedings were quashed and the assessee was to be granted liberty to submit reply to notice issued under section 143(2).[S. 143(2), 272A(1)(d), Art. 226]

S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Appeal of revenue was dismissed. [S. 260A, 263]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Long-term capital gains-Sale of unlisted shares-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 45, 260]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Revenue expenditure-Advance subscription from a non-resident shareholder towards rights issue, which was later treated as external commercial borrowing (ECB)-Foreign exchange fluctuation loss-Brand Development Expenses-Findings of the Assessing Officer were neither prejudicial to the interest of revenue nor an erroneous judgment-Revision order is quashed and set aside-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 37(1), 260A]