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 – In absence of furnishing any shred of credible evidence that shows direct involvement from Japan in making sales to customers in India estimation of rate of net profit at 10 per cent was reasonable and amount of net profit attributable to marketing activities carried out in India would be 30 per cent of amount of net profit relatable to sales in India- DTAA-India -Japan [ Art, 5, 7(a),( 7(c) ]

Daikin Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 301/ 65 ITR 693/ 195 TTJ 663 /(2019) 177 DTR 214 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Franchise of Dominos Pizza -Profit and loss from business belonged to Jubilant and no activities were carried out by jubilant on behalf of assessee, Jubilant did not constitute a Permanent Establishment of assessee in India hence not liable to tax in India -DTAA-India-UK [ Art.5 ]

DCIT v. Dominos Pizza International Franchising Inc. (2018) 171 ITD 321 / 193 TTJ 963/169 DTR 201 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty or business profits – Income from supply of software embedded in hardware – Income relatable to supply of software cannot be treated as royalty income.[S.9(1)(i)]

Bentley Nevada LLC v. Jt. DIT (IT) (2018) 164 DTR 1 / 192 TTJ 651(Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Sales tax incentive-Remanded to the file of AO .

Dy. CIT v. Everest Industries Ltd. (2018) 192 TTJ 904 /168 DTR 178/90 taxmann.com 330 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 4:Charge of income- tax – Subsidy received from Government for setting up of an industry in the backward area was to be treated as a capital receipt.

ACIT v. Pasadensa Foods Ltd. (2018) 163 DTR 243 (Delhi)( Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Receipt arising on extra sale value of sugar did not arise to Assessee since the receipt was cast with the obligation to pay the same to sugar factories and hence, it had to be diverted by overriding title—Difference in profit was not to be included as income in hands of assessee.

ACIT v. Deepak Jagdish Thakkar (2018) 161 DTR 49 / 191 TTJ 104 (Pune)(Trib.)

Interpretation-Precedent- Merely filing of an SLP would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in abeyance.

PCIT v. Associated Cable Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction- Sanction granted by writing “Yes, I am satisfied” is not sufficient to comply with the requirement of s. 151 because it means that the approving authority has recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and without application of mind-Reassessment is bad in law . [ S.147, 148, 292B ]

Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2018) 195 TTJ 388/170 DTR 237/ 66 ITR 47 (SN) ( Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S.147:Reassessment -If information is received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by AO, said information cannot be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis is not justified.[ S.148, 151 ]

Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2018) 195 TTJ 388/ 170 DTR 237 /66 ITR 47 (SN) ( Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 68: Cash credits- Produced sufficient documentary evidence before AO, at the assessment as well as appellate stage to prove the genuineness of the transaction- Share capital, share premium received by a Company from investors can not be assessed as unexplained cash credit – The valuation report filed by the assessee support explanation of assessee that shares were issued at premium which were below the fair market value -Addition cannot be made as income from other sources.[ S.56(2)(viib), R.11UA(2)(a) ]

Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO ( 2018) 67 ITR 649 ( Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org