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. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Micro financing activity is in nature of trade, commerce or business hence is not entitle to exemption as charitable purpose. [ S.2(15) ]

Shalom Charitable Ministries of India v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 338 /( 2019) 177 DTR 22(Cochin) (Trib.)

S. 10A : Free trade zone – Period of ten consecutive years to be reckoned from year of commencement of manufacture and not from incorporation.

Aspire Systems (I) P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 62 ITR 656 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S.10(23C) : Educational institutions- For grant of approval u/s.10(23C)(vi) the institution must exist solely for educational purpose and not for profit. The other objects such as encourage sportsman and adventurous spirit in the pupils and those connected with the institution; to print, publish and exhibit films, journals, periodicals, books for the diffusion of useful knowledge and to provide residential accommodation either free of cost and educate, train and assist financially the social workers, staff, students, orphans objects other than educational objects- Rejection of application for grant of approval is justified.[ S.10(23C)(vi) ]

Desales Educational Society. v. PCIT (E) (2018) 171 ITD 170 (Visakh)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Fees for technical services – Referral fee earned by the assessee is held to be not taxable in India – DTAA-India -Switzerland .[ Art, 7 ]

Credit Suisse AG v. Dy. CIT (2018) 192 TTJ 67 (UO)(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Assessee, a US company, was wholly owned subsidiary of an Indian company entered into an agreement with another US company to acquire patent and technical information related to manufacturing of two products belonging to said foreign company – Assessee got said products manufactured from its holding company in India and same were subsequently sold in US – This shows clear business connection with India – royalty paid by assessee to US company in terms of patent agreement was taxable in India under S. 9(1)(vi) of the Act.

Dorf Ketal Chemicals LLC v. Dy. CIT (2018) 165 DTR 215 / 193 TTJ 390 (Mum) (Trib.)

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.)