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. 5 : Scope of total income – Non-resident — Employees of Indian company sent on assignments – Employees residents of those countries and liable to tax on their worldwide income in those countries for period of their assignment income did not accrue in India and not chargeable to tax in India — Indian Company is not liable to deduct tax on salaries paid in India — Once employees returned and became residents Indian Company can give credit for taxes deducted during deputation outside India – DTAA- India – Germany – USA [ S. 2(45) 4, 5(2) 9(1)(ii) 15, 90, 192 , Art.4(1) , 23,25 ]

Hewelett Packed India Software Operation P. Ltd.,in re (2018) 401 ITR 339/ 162 DTR 337/ 301 CTR 12 (AAR)

S. 5 : Scope of total income – Notional interest – Charging of notional interest for delayed remittance of collection made by its agent was held to be not justified [ S. 145 ]

Sahara India Ltd v ACIT ( 2018)168 ITD 1/ 164 DTR 49 / 192 TTJ 655 ( TM) (Luck) (Trib)

S. 5 : Scope of total income -Real income- Non-Banking financial company — Mercantile system of accounting —Interest on doubtful debts cannot be assessed as income [ S. 145 ]

CIT v. Pavitra Commercial Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 66 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 5 : Scope of total income – Income – Accrual – Interest – Interest on Inter-Corporate Deposits ( ICDs) which had become non performing asset ( NPA) in terms of prudential norms by RBI , having not accrued not assessable on “accrual” basis, in the hands of non -banking financial company [ S. 145 ]

CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar ( 2018) 253 Taxman 401 / 301 CTR 263/ 163 DTR 169/ (2019) 410 ITR 244 ( SC) Editorial : Order in CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar (2011) 238 CTR 142 / 330 ITR 440 / 196 Taxman 169 / 49 DTR 300 (Delhi)(HC)

S.5: Scope of total income – Income chargeable to tax- Double taxation – Where the assessee has paid the income- tax at source in the State of Sikkim as per the law applicable at the relevant time in Sikkim, the same income was not taxable under the IT Act, 1961-.In a case of reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to the taxpayer is to be adopted [ S.4 ,80TT,256(1), Sikkim State Income Tax Rules, 1948, Art. 371F ]

Mahaveer Kumar Jain v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 738/ 165 DTR 113/ 302 CTR 1/ 255 Taxman 161 (SC) , www.itatonline.org

S. 4: Income chargeable to tax- Share application money- The Interest accrued from share application money has statutorily required to be kept in separate account and was being adjusted towards the cost of raising share capital against public issue expenses . [ S. 56, 145 ]

CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd.( 2018) 403 ITR 426/165 DTR 137/ 302 CTR 90 / 255 Taxman 136 (SC) , www.itatonline.org

S.4: Income chargeable to tax – Diversion of income by overriding title- Acted only broker -For determination of taxable income , written agreement is not relevant, conduct of parties can be considered accordingly only income that has actually accrued to the assessee is taxable. [ S. 5,145 ]

DCIT v. T. Jayachandran ( 2018) 406 ITR 1/ 165 DTR 176/302 CTR 95 / 255 Taxman 344 (SC) , www.itatonline.org/HDFC Bank Ltd; CIT v. ( 2018) 165 DTR 176 /302 CTR 95 / 255 Taxman 344 (SC) State Bank of India; CIT v. ( 2018) 165 DTR 176/302 CTR 95 / 255 Taxman 344 (SC) Indian Bank ; CIT v. ( 2018) 165 DTR 176/302 CTR 95/ 255 Taxman 344 (SC) Editorial: T. Jayachandran v. Dy.CIT ( 2013) 263 CTR 629/ 87 DTR 73 /212 Taxman 620 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-DTAA-India & Belgium–Issuing gradation certificate, the payment cannot be characterize as fees for technical services, not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India- Belgium [S. 9(1)(vii], Art.
12,13]

ACIT v. D. A. Jhaveri (2017) 183 TTJ 447/ 148 DTR 132 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 4 :Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue- Sales tax subsidy is a capital receipt. [ S. 264 ]

Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 309 / ( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 763 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -VAT subsidy -Refund of value added tax was held to be capital receipt and not chargeable to tax . [ S. 2(24)(xviii) , 43(1) ]

CIT v. Deepak Vegpro Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 89 /164 DTR 226/ 302 CTR 269 (Raj) (HC)