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. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Opportunity of hearing-Bangalore to Delhi-High Court held that no opportunity of hearing was given-Order High Court is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 124, Art. 136]

CIT (Appeals) v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) 300 Taxman 601 (SC) Editorial :Dy.CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) 159 taxmann.com 179 (Karn)(HC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Search-From ITO Delhi to DCIT,Karnal Haryana-Incriminating material-Transfer of case on grounds of administrative convenience and meaningful assessment-SLP is dismissed.[S. 124, 131(IA), 132, Art, 136]

Mark Gulati v. Pr. CIT (2024) 300 Taxman 92 (SC) Editorial : SLP dismissed, Dollar Gulati v. PCIT(2024) 162 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Online market support services-Allocation of expenses-Expenditure for un-allocable costs could be allocated on basis of proportionate turnover of concerned segment-Open to accept one or other principle i.e turnover method or headcount method-Choice of assessee in relying upon headcount principle per se could not be rejected-SLP of Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect.[Art. 136]

DCIT v. Fujitsu India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 447 (SC) Editorial : Fujitsu India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 102 taxmann.com 487 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 90 :Double taxation relief-Foreign tax credit-Australian branch-Reasons for such denial could not be discerned and such facts and circumstances warranted reconsideration, matter was to be remanded for reconsideration in so far as tax credit claim was concerned-DTAA-India-Australia.[Art. 24, Art. 226]

Thejo Engineering Ltd v. DCIT, CPC (2024) 300 Taxman 403 (Mad)(HC)

S. 90 : Double taxation relief-DTAA overrides provisions of section 206AA-Rate of tax to be applied for grossing up should be as per DTAA-No substantial question of law. [S. 206AA, 260A]

CIT(IT) v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd (2024) 166 taxmann.com 316 (Karn)(HC) Editorial : Delay of 402 days. Application seeking condonation of delay did not assign any satisfactory reasons for delay nor were they sufficient in law to be condoned, SLP is dismissed. CIT v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 590 (SC)

S. 90 :Double taxation relief-DTAA overrides provisions of section 206AA-Rate of tax to be applied for grossing up should be as per DTAA-Delay of 402 days in filing SLP-Delay is not explained satisfactorily-Delay is not condoned-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 206AA, Art. 136]

CIT v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 590 (SC) Editorial : CIT(IT) v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd (2024) 166 taxmann.com 316 (Karn)(HC)

S. 90 :Double taxation relief-Elimination of double taxation-Review petition dismissed against order of Supreme Court that a notification under section 90(1) is a mandatory condition to give effect to a DTAA, or any protocol changing its terms or conditions, which has effect of altering existing provisions of law and thus, for a party to claim benefit of a same treatment clause, based on entry of DTAA between India and another state which is member of OECD, relevant date would be entering into treaty with India and not a later date, when, after entering into DTAA with India, such country becomes an OECD member, in terms of India’s practice-DTAA-India-France [R. 128, Art. 10, 13]

Nestle SA v. AO (IT) (2024) 300 Taxman 361/ 341 CTR 320/ 243 DTR 88 (SC) Editorial : AO(IT) v. Nestle SA (2023) 155 taxmann.com 384/ 296 Taxman 580 (SC)

S. 80IC : Special category States-Manufacture of pan masala (Mouth freshener)-Pan masala without any tobacco content will not fall within purview of Entry 1 of Part A of Thirteenth Schedule and assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IC(2)(a)(i) read with section 80IC(3). [S.80IC(2)(a), 80IC(3), 260A]

Unicorn Industries v. PCIT (2024) 300 Taxman 347 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 80IB (10) : Housing projects-Project was sanctioned prior to 1-4-2005-Concept of built up area was introduced with effect from 1-4-2005 could not be applied retrospectively-Expression built up area would exclude balcony area-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S.80IB(14), 260A]

PCIT v. G.K. Developers (2024) 300 Taxman 331 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Trading in resign and chemicals on whole sale basis-Information from Sales tax Department-Order of Tribunal restricting the addition to 12.5 % of gross profit is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 133(6), 145(3) 260A]

PCIT v. SVD Resins & Plastics (P.) Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 503 (Bom.)(HC)