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. 10(23C) : Educational institution-Charitable purpose-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed-Delay of 247b days-Review petition is dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [S. 2(15), 10(23C)(iv), Art. 136]
CIT (E) v. India Trade Promotion Organization (2024) 299 Taxman 454/338 CTR 875 (SC) Editorial : CIT (E) v. India Trade Promotion Organisation (2023)454 ITR 799 / 294 taxman 1 (SC)
S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Sale of software-Subscription fees-Order of High Court is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed-DTAA-India-USA [S.9(1)(vii), art. 12, Art. 136]
CIT v. MOL Corporation (2024) 299 Taxman 506(SC) Editorial: CIT (IT)) v. MOL Corporation (2024) 162 taxmann.com 197 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 9(1)(v) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Interest-Other income-Guarantee to various banks to extend credit facilities to its Indian subsidiaries-Guarantee charges were not received by assessee in respect of any debt owed to it by its Indian subsidiary-Guarantee fee would not fall within expression ‘interest’ in article 12 of India UK DTAA-Accrue-Arise-Income-DTAA-India-UK-Northern Ireland / [S. 2(28A), 5(2), 260A, art.7, 12(5), 23(3)]
Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Comapany v. CIT(IT) (2024) 299 Taxman 334 /465 ITR 649 (Delhi)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed , Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Co. v. CIT (IT) (2024) 469 ITR 31 (SC)
S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Liaison Office-Non-Resident company-Did not finalize and transact a business deal and activities-Liaison Office could not be said to be preparatory or auxiliary in nature, LO did not constitute Permanent Establishment of assessee-MIPL was not performing additional function, in absence of material, it could not be taken as dependant agency PE to assessee, a non-resident company-Delay of 395 days-SLP of Revenue is dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits-DTAA-India-Japan [art. 5, Art. 136]
CIT v. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 365(SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v.Mitsui & Co. Ltd (2024) 161 taxmann.com 634 (Delhi) (HC)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Subsidy-Capital or revenue-Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2004-Linked to establishment of new units-Capital in nature.[S.28(i)]
PCIT (Central) v. Pepsico India Holding (P.) Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 309 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Interest-Capital or revenue-Auction sale-Interest against principal amount deposited-Auction sale is nullified by court-Interest is capital receipt and cannot be assessed as income from other sources.[S. 56(2)(viii)]
PCIT v. INS Finance & Investment (P.) Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 131 / 340 CTR 602(Delhi)(HC)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue Sales tax exemption-Notice is issued in SLP filed by the assesseee. [U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, S. 4A, Art. 136]
Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 299 Taxman 508 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Birla Corporation Ltd(2024) 159 taxmann.com 651 (Cal)(HC)
S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Trade advances-Commercial transactions-Cannot be assessed as deemed dividend-Order of High Court is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 136]
PCIT (Central) v. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (2024) 299 Taxman 363 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (2022) 140 taxmann.com 32 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure -Bogus purchases -Tribunal confirmed 10% of alleged bogus purchases – On appeal High Court deleted the 10% of alleged bogus purchases confirmed by the Tribunal . [ S. 260A ]
Ashok Kumar Rungta v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 580( Bom)( HC) . www.itatonline .org
S. 115BBC : Anonymous donations – Determination of tax in certain cases – Charitable Trust – Anonymous donations received in the Hundi cannot be taxed under Section 115BBC(1) of the Act – Order of Tribunal is affirmed – No substantial question of law . [ S. 10(23C)(v), 11, 12 ,12A , 80G (5), 115BBC(2)(b), 260A ]
CIT ( E ) v. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust – Shirdi (2024) 341 CTR 201/ 167 taxmann.com 304 ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org .