This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Data access/link charges from its Indian subsidiary was neither for scientific work nor any patent, trademark, design, plan or secret formula or process, thus, it could not be held to be royalty-Copyrighted/shrink-wrapped software, which could not be treated as consideration for transfer of any copyright, thus, same could not be treated as royalty-Professional and consultancy services provided by assessee, a USA based company to an Indian company, did not ‘make available’ any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process or consist of any development and transfer of any design, receipt on account of said services was not taxable as fee for included services-DTAA-India-USA [Art. 12 (4)].

Netcracker Technology Solutions LLC v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 701 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Earning from branch offices in UAE and Qatar are to be included in assessee’s taxable income in India-DTAA-India-Qatar. [S. 90(3), 297(2)(k), Art. 7]

Technimont (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 474 / (2021) 197 DTR 121 / 209 TTJ 287 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 5 : Scope of total income-Transfer of development rights-Joint venture agreement-Partial payment as advance-Failure to perform obligation-Not assessable as income. [S. 145]

ITO v. Newtech (India) Developers (2020) 184 ITD 451 / 189 DTR 31 / 205 TTJ 12 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Loans and advances-Commercial transactions-Addition cannot be made as deemed dividend.

ITO v. Yashovardhan Tyagi (2020) 184 ITD 461 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-TPO accepted benchmarking under TNMM-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S.92D]

DCIT v. Decent Dia Jewels (P.) Ltd. (2020) 183 ITD 492 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Vague notice-Failure mention specific charge-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid-Delay in filing tax audit report-Reasonable cause-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S.273B]

North Eastern Constructions v. ITO (2020) 183 ITD 348 /194 DTR 257 / 206 TTJ 354 (Guwahati)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Estimate of income-Satisfaction-8% of contractual receipts-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified.

Anil Abhubhai Odedara v. ITO (2020) 183 ITD 313 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 268A : Appeal-Monetary limit-Penalty-Appeal of revenue is dismissed [S. 271(1)(c)]

ITO v. Dushyant Manilal Pandya. (2020) 183 ITD 581 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Construction and service contracts-Percentage completion-Project completion method-Cannot be declared as invalid-Provisions of section 43CB prescribing percentage completion method for determining profits and gains of a construction company are to be applied mandatorily with effect from 01-04-2017 i.e. assessment year 2017-18 onwards-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 43CA, 145]

Hi-tech Estates & Promoters (P.) Ltd. (2020) 84 ITR 10 / 183 ITD 690/ 207 TTJ 209 (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credit-Assessing the deposits as undisclosed turnover and estimating income at 4% of turnover-Only probability and likelihood to find error in assessment order is not permitted-Revision is held to be not valid-When undisclosed amount of assessee in his bank account as undisclosed business receipts/turnover provision of 115BBE would not attract. [S. 68, 115BBE]

Abdul Hamid. v. ITO (2020) 183 ITD 711/195 DTR 321/207 TTJ 1109 (Gauhati)(Trib.)/Abdul Hannan v .ITO (2020) 183 ITD 711/195 DTR 321/207 TTJ 1109 (Gauhati) (Trib.)