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)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent Establishment-Supply and delivery of equipment and supervision, installation, erection and commissioning activity-Single composite contract-Assessee had PE in India-Income attributable to Indian PE from said contracts is taxable in India-Matter remanded to the file of the AO for computation-DTAA-India-Germany. [Art. 5, 7]

Durr Systems GmbH. v. DCIT IT (2024) 204 ITD 258 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent establishment-Agency PE-Indian subsidiary-Advertisement sales agent-Not dependent PE-Not taxable in India-DTAA-India-Mauritius [Art. 5(4)]

Taj TV Ltd. v. DCIT IT (2024) 204 ITD 50 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Interest income-Temporarily parked / deposited with banks on fixed deposits-Prior to commencement of business-Capital receipt-Required to be set off against pre-operative expenses. [S. 145]

Chandhok Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 204 ITD 17 / 227 TTJ 744 (SMC) (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 271D : Penalty – Takes or accepts any loan or deposit – Share application money in cash-Looking into the object and purpose of S. 269SS and 269T read with the Explanation defining the words “loan and deposit”, the share application money can neither be said to be loan nor a deposit-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty is affirmed. [S. 269SS, 269T, 271E, 260A]

CIT v. Vamshi Chemicals Ltd. (2024) 339 CTR 577/ 162 taxmann.com 906 (Cal) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Capital gains – Higher valuation as per S.50C – Merely because higher valuation – Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 45, 50C, 245C, 245D, Art. 226]

Rajendra Prasad Agarwal v. ITSC (2024) 339 CTR 1/ 161 taxmann.com 638 (All) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Accrual – Accounting – Once an order become final and stood quashed-Subsequent order is not valid.[S. 143(3),145(1), 260A.]

PCIT v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (2024) 339 CTR 424 / 164 taxmann.com 307 ((Meghalaya) (HC)

S. 261 : Appeal-Supreme Court – Condonation of delay of 484 days – Explanation was not satisfactory – SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 136]

PCIT v. SPML Infra Ltd. (2024) 339 CTR 393/ 300 Taxman 366 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. SPML Infra Ltd (Cal)(HC)(ITA No. 209 of 2022 dt. 16 th Nov, 2022)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record -Followed Orissa High Court-Not following the Jurisdictional High Court-Mistake apparent on record – Order of Tribunal is quashed – Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal.[Art. 226]

Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 339 CTR 233/ 162 taxmann.com 201 (Guj) (HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Adjustment of more than 20 per cent against demand-Credit for TDS and TCS must be considered – Excess amount collected is directed to be refunded. [S. 239, 240 Art. 226]

Orion Security Solutions (P) LTD. v. DCIT [2023] 155 taxmann.com 411 / (2024) 339 CTR 108 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153 : Assessment – Limitation – Remand by Tribunal – Order received by CIT (Judicial) on 31 st Jan., 2019-Adjustment of refund-Order was passed on 13th Feb., 2023-Order is set aside-Respondents are directed to re-compute the refund payable to the assessee along with statutory interest. [S. 153(3), 237, 240 244A, 254(1), Art. 226]

Readers Digest Book & Home Entertainment (India) (P) LTD. v. DCIT (2024) 339 CTR 99/ 159 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi)(HC)