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)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Software receipts is not taxable as royalty.

DIT v. Microsoft Regional Sales PTE. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 15 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed, DIT(IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales PTE. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 19 (SC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Receipts from sale of software licences to Indian customers-Software receipts is not taxable as royalty-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 136]

DIT(IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales PTE. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 19/ 294 Taxman 519 (SC) Editorial: DIT(IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales PTE. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 15 (Delhi) (HC), affirmed.

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Non-Resident-Payment for software not royalty-Explns. 5, 6-DTAA-India-China. [Art. 12(3)].

CIT (IT) v. ZTE Corporation (2023)454 ITR 541/ 293 Taxman 274 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. ZTE Corporation (2021) 130 taxmann.com 128 (Delhi)(HC)

S.9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Non-Resident-Use of copyright in the computer software-Software receipts-Not taxable in India-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(vi), 90(2) 195, Art. 12]

CIT (IT) v. Mol Corporation (2023)454 ITR 28 /150 taxmann.com 117 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed, CIT v. MOL Corporation (2023)454 ITR 32/ 293 Taxman 74 (SC)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Non-Resident-Use of copyright in the computer software-Software receipts-Not taxable in India-DTAA-India-USA.[S. 9(1)(vi), 195]

CIT v. MOL Corporation (2023)454 ITR 32/ 293 Taxman 74 (SC) Editorial : Refer, CIT (IT) v. Mol Corporation (2023)454 ITR 28 / 150 taxmann.com 117 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent Establishment-Portion of income reasonably attributable to operations in India-Question of fact-Tribunal attributing 15 Per Cent. of total revenues as income accruing or arising in India on basis of functions performed, assets used and risks-Commission paid to distribution agents more than twice this amount and taxed-No further income taxable in India-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(i ),n Explanation 1(a), Art. 7]

DIT v. Travelport Inc. (2023) 454 ITR 289 / 293 Taxman 439 / 332 CTR 480 / 225 CTR 201 (SC)/ Galieo International Inc ; DIT v. (2023)454 ITR 289/ 293 Taxman 439/ 332 CTR 480/ 225 CTR 201 (SC) Editorial: Decision of the Delhi High Court in DIT v. Galileo International Inc. (2011) 336 ITR 264 (Delhi)(HC), Galileo Netherland BV. V.ADIT (IT) 2014) 367 ITR 319 (Delhi)(HC), affirmed.

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Interest-Short term deposits-Funds placed with banks during period of construction of project-Interest earned is capital in nature. [S. 28(i), 145, 260A]

PCIT v. Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 202 / (2024) 337 CTR 615(Gauhati)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Sales tax exemption-Scheme requiring recipient of benefit to utilise substantial portion of subsidy for capital purposes-Capital receipt. [S. 28(i)]

CIT v. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 808 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 237 (Guj)(HC), affirmed. CIT v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd (2017) 10 ITR-OL 275 (Guj)(HC), affirmed.

S. 24 : Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction–Benami Property-Provisional Attachment-Show cause notice-Writ petition against show cause notice is dismissed-Directed to file the reply-Time to file reply is extended by a period of two weeks. [S. 24(1), Art. 226]

Aachman Marketing (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2023] 294 Taxman 737 (Cal)(HC)

S. 24 : Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction–Benami Property-Provisional Attachment-Sufficient material-The Assessee was advised to approach the adjudicating officer to explain why the provisional attachment order is bad in law. [S. 24(1), Art. 226]

M. Kumudhavalli v. Initiating Officer Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) (2023) 294 Taxman 633 /(2024) 460 ITR 43(Mad)(HC)