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-Reimbursement of software licence fee-Not liable to be taxed as royalty-DTAA-India-Swedish. [Art. 12]

Essity Hygiene and Health AB v. Dy. CIT (2021) 190 ITD 166 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 6(1) : Residence in India-Individual-Out side India for a period more than 182 days-Salary income received by assessee outside India from a foreign employer for services rendered outside India could not be brought to tax in India. [S. 5]

Ashish Bhardwaj. v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 867 (SMC) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 6(1) : Residence in India-Individual-Out side India for a period more than 182 days-Salary income received by assessee outside India from a foreign employer for services rendered outside India could not be brought to tax in India. [S. 5]

Ashish Bhardwaj. v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 867 (SMC) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 5 : Scope of total income-Accrual of income-Sale proceeds-Memorandum of understanding (MoU) with SIPL to invest in project to be executed by SIPL-Agreement for sale-Project was not completed-whole profit cannot be taxed in the first year of execution of MOU-Matter remanded. [S. 145]

Pearl Coschem (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 190 ITD 569 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 2(14) : Capital asset-Rights or interest in a property-Period of holding is to be reckoned from date of first agreement, while calculating capital gains. [S. 2(42A), 2(42B), 45]

Shiv Kumar Jatia v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 181 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 24(3) : Benami Transactions-Amendment Act 2016-Jurisdictional High Court declaring amendment to have no retrospective effect-Operation of order stayed by Supreme Court-Binding precedent-Interpretation-Decision of High Court not set aside and to be followed by same High Court precedent-Effect of stay order by Supreme Court-The authorities were not to take any further steps in the matter till the disposal of these writ petitions and the petitioners shall not sell, otherwise transfer, deal with, encumber or part with possession of the properties in question till the disposal of the writ petitions-An order of stay in a pending appeal before the Supreme Court does not amount to any declaration of law but is only binding upon the parties to the proceedings and at the same time, such interim order does not destroy the binding effect of the judgment of the High Court as a precedent because while granting the interim order. [S. 24(5), 26(7), Art. 226]

Deific Abode LLP v. UOI (2021)437 ITR 397 (Cal) (HC)

Art. 141 : Covid-19-Limitation-Extension of period-Order dated March 8, 2021 restored with clarifications-Period from March 15, 2020 till March 14, 2021 excluded and further clarification given [Art, 142, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 S, 23(4), 29, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, S. 12A, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,S.138,any other law, which prescribes limitation]

Cognizance for extension of Limitation, In Re (2021) 438 ITR 296 (SC)

S. 89 : Tax Arrears-Adjustment of refund-Refund amount first to be adjusted towards arrear of tax and not penalty-Direction issued to grant certificate. [S. 87 (e), 87) (f) ,90(1), ITACT, 140A, Art. 226]

Best India Tobacco Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 234 / 204 DTR 187 / 321 CTR 735(AP)(HC)

S. 181 : Failure to pay full amount of tax according to declaration-Declaration would be non est-Part payment cannot be forfeited-Amount must be returned to the assessee. [S. 183(1), 187(3), 191, Art, 265]

Pinnacle Vastunirman Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2021) 438 ITR 27/ 206 DTR 227 / 323 CTR 159 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 3 : Disputed tax-Disputed arrears-Interest-Department appeal-Matter remanded to Assessing Officer-Designated Authority demanding 100 per Cent of Disputed tax as payable-Held to be not sustainable. [S. 2(1)(j), 2(1)(j)(o), 4, 5, 6, IT Act, 2(43), 234D, 244A (3), Art. 226]

Co-Operative Rabobank U. A. v. CIT(IT) (2021) 437 ITR 639 205 DTR 113/ 322 CTR 257/ ( 2022) 284 Taxman 175 (Bom.)(HC)