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)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-Payments received from Indian customers for centralised services–Not taxable as fees for technical services or fees for included services-DTAA-India-USA. [Art. 12(4)(a)]

CIT(IT) v. Westin Hotel Management LP (2022) 449 ITR 489/ (2023) 290 Taxman 262 (Delhi)(HC) CIT(IT) v. Sheraton Overseas Management Corporation (2022) 449 ITR 489 (Delhi)(HC).Editorial : Notice issued in SLP against High Court order , CIT(IT) v. Westin Hotel Management LP ( 2023) 294 Taxman 430 ( SC)

S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose-Exemption-Object of general public utility-Clarification-Law declared by court to be applied for assessment years in question, which were before court and were decided-Appeals decided against department, matter to be treated as final-For assessment years not before Court, authorities to apply law declared in judgment, having regard to facts of each year. [S. 10(20A), 10(23C), 10(46), 11, 11(4), 11(4A), 12, 12A, 12AA, 13(8), 143(3)]

ACIT(E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022) 449 ITR 389 / (2023) 290 Taxman 137 (SC) Editorial : Clarification, ACIT(E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority(2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC)

S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose-Advancement of object of general public utility-Changes in law after 1-4-2009-Cannot engage in any trade, commerce or business, or provide service in relation thereto for consideration-Activities must be connected to achievement of object of general public utility and receipts therefrom do not exceed quantified limit-Consideration on cost-basis or nominally above cost not Commercial-Charges significantly above cost would fall within mischief of Trade, commerce or business-Assessing Officer has to decide year to year basis-Separate books of account must be maintained-Statutory corporation, Board or any other body set up by State or Central Government for achieving public functions or services-Receipts not business or commercial receipts-Assessing authorities to determine if consideration significantly higher than cost and if so, whether comply with quantified limit-Central Government to decide on case-by-case basis whether and to what extent exemption can be awarded to notified bodies-Denial of benefit after 1-4-2011 does not preclude from claiming exemption under other provisions-Regulatory bodies tasked with exclusive duties of prescribing curriculum, disciplining professionals and prescribing standards of professional conduct-Prima facie not business or commercial receipts-Bodies involved in trade promotion or purely for co-ordinating and assisting trading organisations-Subjected to rigours of proviso-GSI India Services for benefit of trade and business, from which it received significantly high receipts-Exemption denied-State Cricket Associations-Commercial rights-Each case and for every year tax Authorities to examine pattern of receipts and expenditure-Matter remanded-Private Trust for publishing newspaper-Income received from advertisements constitutes business or commercial receipts Not entitled to exemption-Assessee formed with object of running arogya kendra-No Clarity whether supplying Mid-Day meals fell within objects clause of Society-Tax effect less than Rs. 10 Lakhs-Receipts not exceeding quantitative limit-Entitled to registration-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Amending provisions-to be considered in light of history of legislation and what lawmakers intended by amendment-.Aids to construction-Speeches made in legislature can be looked into-Circulars-Binding upon Departmental Authorities if they advance proposition within framework of statute-Not binding where contrary to statute-Not binding on courts. [S. 10(20A), 10(23C), 10(46), 11, 11(4), 11(4A), 12, 12A, 12AA, 13(8), 143(3)]

ACIT(E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022) 449 ITR 1 / 329 CTR 297 / 219 DTR 209/ 143 taxmann.com 278 //(2023) 291 Taxman 11 (SC) Editorial : For further clarification refer, ACIT(E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022)449 ITR 389 // (2023) 290 Taxman 137 (SC)

S. 145: Method of accounting -Valuation of stock -Valuation adopted by Revenue valid — No question of law .[ S.260A]

Goa Carbon Ltd. v. JCIT (2022)446 ITR 590/ 289 Taxman 322 (Bom) (HC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes — Date of applicability of a statutory amendment – Amending provisions — to be considered in light of history of legislation and what lawmakers intended by amendment – .Aids to construction — Speeches made in legislature can be looked into- Circulars — Binding upon Departmental Authorities if they advance proposition within framework of statute — Not binding where contrary to statute—Not binding on courts-Definition — Unless the context otherwise requires . [ S. 10(20A), 10(23C), 10(46), 11, 11(4), 11(4A), 12, 12A, 12AA, 13(8), 143(3)

ACIT (E) v .Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022)449 ITR 1 / 219 DTR 209/ 329 CTR 297 /(2023) 291 Taxman 11 (SC)

Wealth-Tax Act, 1957

S. 2(ea):Assets — Urban land — Agreement for sale of land to developers in December 2000 — Possession was given to buyers —Buyers conveying the land to third person in August 2007 – Value of land not assessable in hands of assessee. [ S. 2(n) 3, 16(3), 17 ]

Noorani Properties (P.) Ltd. v .CIT (2022)449 ITR 460 / 216 DTR 296/ 328 CTR 702 (Karn)(HC) Verde Developers (P) Ltd v .CIT (2022)449 ITR 460 / 216 DTR 296/ 328 CTR 702 (Karn)(HC) Triad Resorts and Hotels (P) Ltd v .CIT (2022)449 ITR 460 / 216 DTR 296/ 328 CTR 702 (Karn)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vii):Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Fees for technical services -Technical services do not include construction, assembly and design — Dominant purpose of contract was supply of passenger rolling stock —Amount received under contract could not be deemed to accrue or arise in India [ S. 194J, 201(IA) ]

CIT v .Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2022)449 ITR 431 288 Taxman 539 (Karn)( HC)

Interpretation of taxing statute – The principles of judicial discipline and propriety and binding precedent – Unless there is a stay obtained by authorities under Income-tax Act, 1961 from higher forum, mere fact of filing appeal or SLP will not entitle authority not to comply with order of High Court- Court directed the Registrar General to forward the copy of the judgement for circulating amongst authorities under the Income tax- Act , 19961 and for the observance of the principles of the judicial discipline and propriety. [ Art , 141, 226 , 227 ]

Mohan Lal Santwani v. UOI (2022)449 ITR 476/ 287 Taxman 634 / 218 DTR 313 / 329 CTR 113 (All)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment –Notice – Challenged on several grounds – writ petition dismissed .[ S. 147, Art , 226 ]

Vishal Ashwin Patel v. ACIT ( Bom)( HC) (UR) H.P. Diamond India (P) Ltd v. Dy .CIT ( 2022) 139 taxmann.com 515 ( Bom)(HC) Editorial: Order of High court set aside and directed to decide on merits , Vishal Ashwin Patel v. ACIT (2022)443 ITR 1 / 212 DTR 123/ 325 CTR 699 / 132 taxmann.com 372 /287 Taxman 167 (SC)

S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house -Co-owner of property – Cannot be treated as absolute owner – Denial of exemption is not valid [ S. 45 ]

Anant R .Gowande v. ACIT ( 2022) The Chamber’s Journal – December – P. 89 ( Mum)( Trib)