S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Non-resident-Royalty-or technical fees-Customer relationship management related services-Copyright in application not transferred to subscriber-SLP of revenue dismissed-(1994) 209 ITR (St.) 1)-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S.9(1)(vii),Art. 12(4)(b)]

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 ]