S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Software receipts-Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made in hands of assessee on account of recharacterization of receipts from sale of software licenses to Indian customers/distributors as royalty-DTAA-India-USA-SLP of Revenue dismissed. [S. 260A, Art. 12]

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Consideration for resale / use of computer software-Licensing of software products in India not taxable in India as royalty-Not payment of royalty for use of copy right in computer software-Not taxable in India-Precedent-Decision rendered following earlier decision-Subsequent overruling of earlier decision does not revive judgment passed earlier-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(vii), Art. 12, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLVII, Rule, 1]

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Information, reservations, transaction processing and related services to airlines, travel agencies and other travel related entities by utilizing a CRS-Major part of business activities took place in USA-Tribunal is justified in holding that 15 per cent of assessee’s profit was to be attributed to India-DTAA-India-USA. [Art. 5(4)(a), 260A]

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Providing Jack up drilling Unit and platform Well operations.-Number of days of deployment of rig was more than 183 days-No substantial question of law arose for consideration-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 44BB, 260A, Art. 5]

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Information, reservations, transaction processing and related services to airlines, travel agencies and other travel related entities by utilizing a CRS-Major part of business activities took place in USA-Tribunal is justified in holding that 15 per cent of assessee’s profit was to be attributed to India-DTAA-India-USA. [Art. 5(4)(a)]

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Subsidy from State Government-Incentive given to establish an industrial unit in a backward area-Capital receipt-No adjustment could be made to actual cost. [S. 32, 43(1)]

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 )
S. 88 : Settlement of tax payable – Determination of disputed tax – Total assessed tax to be reduced by taxes already paid (including any refunds issued by revenue and interest paid on those refunds). [S.87(e), 87(f) 88(a)(i) 90(1) Art. 226 ]

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake -Mistake apparent from the record – Limitation – Book – profit – Order giving effect to appellate order – Issue sought to be rectified not subject matter of appeal – Period of limitation will be reckoned from the date of original assessment order in respect of points not subjected to appellate jurisdiction- Oder passed in 2004 could not be rectified after a period of 4 years, impugned order passed under section 154 dated 29-3-2014 was barred by limitation . [ S. 32 , 115JB , 143(3) . 154(IA ) ]

S. 133A :Power of survey – Assessment – Residential premises – Portion of residence as office premises – Use of evidence is permissible – Survey at residential premises is held to be valid .[ Indian Evidence Act , 1872 , S. 65A, 65B]

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Assessment year 2013 -14 – Six years expired on 31 st March , 2020 – Notice issued on 28 th July , 2022 – Notice issued beyond six years – Barred by limitation – Taxation and other laws ( Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions , Act, 2020 (TOLA) has not applicable for the Assessment year 2013 -14 – Instructions are not binding on the assessee- Validity of notice must be judged on the basis of the law existing on the date on which such notice is issued – Notice and order was quashed as barred by limitation. [ S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d) , 149 (1) , 151 ,151A, Limitation Act , 1963 , TOLA , S. 3(1), Art. 142 , 226 ]