S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-“Make available” condition not satisfied-Services relating to customs brokerage support, destination services and training for developing global work culture did not involve transfer of specialised knowledge or skill-No income accrued or arose in India from business connection-Payment not taxable as fees for technical services under Act or Article 12 of India-USA DTAA. [S. 9(1)(i), Art. 12(5)]

S. 9(1)(vii): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-Centralised marketing and reservation services provided to Indian affiliate-“Make available” condition not satisfied-Not taxable as FTS / FIS under India-USA DTAA-Revenue’s appeal dismissed. [S. 144C, 260A; Art. 12(4)(a), (b)]

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Exemption-Compensation paid for compulsory acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956-Though acquisition under National Highways Act is covered by Fourth Schedule to 2013 Act, by virtue of s. 105(3) read with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015, provisions relating to determination of compensation under 2013 Act apply-Consequently, exemption under s. 96 also applies-Compensation received from NHAI on compulsory acquisition of land is not chargeable to tax-Rejection of rectification application and refund claim held not justified. [S. 260A; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, S. 96, 103, 105(1), 105(3), 113(1), Sch. IV Entry 7]

S. 69 : Unexplained investment – Reassessment – Purchase of property – AIR information – Addition for investment of Rs. 10 lakh deleted as documentary evidence showed payment related to relevant year – Addition of Rs. 40.95 lakh for property purchase deleted as assessee explained source through sale deed, housing loan of Rs. 20 lakh and past savings – Once documentary evidence remained uncontroverted, addition not sustainable – Technical grounds not pressed as relief granted on merits. [ S. 147 . 148 ]

S. 149 : Reassessment – Time limit for notice – Notice issued beyond three years – Escaped income must be represented in the form of an asset under pre-amended section 149(1)(b) as substituted by Finance Act, 2021 – Alleged bogus purchases are revenue items and not “asset” – Reopening invalid – Assessment quashed – Consequential addition deleted. [S. 144, 143(2), 142(1), 147, 148 , 149(1)(b) ]

Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2024.
S. 2(1)(a) : Appellant -Pendency of appeal-Rejection of declaration – Pendency of writ petition – Assessee covered within definition of “appellant” – AO directed to process declaration in Form No. 1. [S. 89(1)(a), 89(1)(j), 91, ITACT, S. 144C, Art. 226]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Partition-Dissolution of HUF-Long-term capital loss claimed by dissolved HUF disallowed-Penalty proceedings initiated and order passed in the name of non-existent entity-Reason recorded in penalty order contrary to show-cause notice-Addition in assessment does not automatically justify penalty-Deletion of penalty upheld. [S. 171, 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of enquiry-Leasehold rights in land and building duly examined by Assessing Officer-Valuation based on registered valuer’s report-Reversal of provision disallowed u/s 43B cannot be taxed on write-back-Revision not sustainable-Tribunal quashing revision affirmed. [S. 43B, 56(2)(x), 260A].

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Condonation of delay-Non-consideration of assessee’s application-Order passed without examining records amounts to gross negligence-Order set aside and matter remanded-Cost of Rs 10000 was imposed on Department with liberty to recover the same from the erring officer in accordance with law. [S. 246A, 249(3), Art. 226]

S. 245D: Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-True and full disclosure-High Court set aside order of Single Judge interfering with Settlement Commission order-Once ITSC was satisfied about true and full disclosure and had proceeded beyond stage of s. 245D(2C), writ court cannot re-appreciate sufficiency of material or interpretation of seized documents-Alleged calculation error could be brought before appropriate authority for correction. [S. 245C, 245D(2C), 245D(4), Art. 226]