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)(v) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Interest-Transactions with Head Office-Paid by Indian branch of foreign bank to Head Office-Constitute a single entity-Neither deductible nor chargeable to tax-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art. 7]

ACIT(IT) v. Credit Suisse AG. (2022) 197 ITD 209 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent Establishment-Agency PE-Computer information system (CRS)-Computer, electronic hardware / software and connectivity is provided through third party nodes located in India-Constitute PE of and income arising from airlines and travel agents is attributable to activities of PE in India and taxable in India-Income attributable to assessee’s PE in India was to be determined at 15 per cent instead of 75 per cent as determined by AO.-Royalties / Fees for technical services-CRS and ARS was installed at airport which could be accessed only by airlines, payments made in relation to ARS could not be characterised as royalty either under section 9 or under India-Spain DTAA-DTAA-India-Spain. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), Art. 5, 13]

Amadeus IT Group SA v. ACIT (2022) 197 ITD 330 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Brokerage income from NRRs and did not work wholly and exclusively for co-broker, assessee was not dependent agent permanent establishment of said co-broker in India-Not dependent agent permanent establishment of said co-broker in India-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 195, Art. 5, 7]

ITO(IT) v. International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services (P.) Ltd. (2022) 197 ITD 198 / (2023) 222 TTJ 515 / 224 DTR 29 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Dubai branch-Referral fee-Swiss company received fee from an Indian company for referring an Indian resident client for bringing out issue of convertible bonds-Fee is in nature of commission to be taxed as business income and not as fees for technical services-Fee not attributable PE in India the same is not taxable in India-DTAA-India-Switzerland. [S. 9(1)(vii), Art. 7, 12]

ACIT(IT) v. Credit Suisse AG. (2022) 197 ITD 209 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 5 : Scope of total income-Resident in India-Long term capital gains-Shares held in UAE based company-Taxable as per the provisions of Indian Income-tax and not as per article 13 of DTAA-DTAA-India-UAE. [S. 6(1), 9(1), Art. 13]

Prabhukumar Aiyappa Kullatira v. ITO [2022] 197 ITD 58/(2023) 224 TTJ 252 (Bang.) (Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Fixed deposit-Fiduciary capacity-Protect the interest of company-Addition cannot be made as deemed dividend.

ACIT v. Anilkumar Phoolchand Sanghvi (2022) 197 ITD 439 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Not a share holder of holding company-Not taxable as deemed dividend irrespective of their common shareholders.

Pallava Resorts (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 197 ITD 411 (Chennai) (Trib.)

Companies Act , 2013 .
S. 230 : Composite scheme of arrangement – Demerger – Revenue objected on the ground that the scheme was a tool to avoid and evade taxes – NCLT and NCLAT clarified that Revenue was entitled to take out appropriate proceedings for recovery of any tax statutorily due from the transferor or transferee company or any other liable person – Order of NCLT and NCALT could not interfered with [ S. 231 , 232 ]

JCIT v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (2022) 219 DTR 61 / 329 CTR 228 (SC)

Black Money ( Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act , 2015.
S. 10:Assessment – Notice issued based on information received from IT authorities – Order passed under IT Act based on same information was earlier set-aside by the Tribunal on the ground of non-application of mind – Notice issued under BMA was quashed. [ S. 132 153A , Art , 226 ]

Jitendra Virwani v. JCIT (2022) 220 DTR 433 /(2023) 330 CTR 34 (Karn)(HC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions – Sanction – Chief Commissioner – Commissioner – Application for compounding of offence – Rejected on the ground of limitation and the fact that assessee was already convicted by Magistrate – Conviction order set aside by CBI Judge and directed a fresh trial – High Court sets aside rejection of compounding application as (i) CBDT Circular had relaxed time limit to file a such application and (ii) second objection no longer survives as the conviction set aside – Revenue to consider the application seeking compounding on its own merit and in accordance with law [ S. 119 , 276CC, 278E, Art , 226 , CRPC , 391 ]

Jai Singh Goel v. CCIT . (2022) 325 CTR 485 / 211 DTR 293 (Delhi)( HC)