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)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Relocation expenses of employees-Profit attributable to PE-Matter remanded-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 90, Art. 7]

Teradata Operations Inc v. Dy. CIT (2021) 209 TTJ 770 / 200 DTR 225 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Foreign company-Making supplies from outside India-No income has accrued to it in India-Supervision of installation and had received supervision fee separately which is offered to tax in India-No permanent Establishment in India-Income from supplies not taxable in India-DTAA-India-Japan. [Art. 5, 12(2)]

Sumitomo Corporation v. DCIT (IT) (2021) 213 TTJ 137 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Subsidy received under incentive scheme of Government Scheme of Maharashtra-Capital receipt. [S. 28(1)]

Hyundai Construction Equipment India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 208 DTR 449 /(2022) 215 TTJ 383 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Option price received from joint ventures for getting right to acquire further shares in joint venture company-Advance towards sale price of shares-Capital receipt [S. 28(i), 45]

Dabur Invest Corp v. JCIT (2021) 210 TTJ 785 / 202 DTR 209 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-In the absence of transfer of units in a project neither a sale can be recorded in the books of the assessee nor any income can be said to have arisen in the hands of the assessee and consequently, no income can be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee-Estimate of profit at 8% as contractor was deleted. [S. 2(47)]

ITO v. Kidderpore Holdings Ltd. (2021) 213 TTJ 6 / 197 DTR 8 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Housing project – Tribunal cannot differ from earlier order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case and follow the order of Tribunal in another assessee – The matter has to be referred to larger Bench in case the Tribunal desires to differ from earlier order of the Tribunal – The Tribunal should have considered the order of the High court which was placed on record through rectification application- Order of Tribunal is set aside . [ S. 80IB(10) , 254(2, 260A, Art , 226 ]

Omega Investments and Properties Ltd v. CIT ( Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org Omega Investments and Properties Ltd v. CIT ( Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Referral commission paid to doctors – Violation of the professional conduct- Not allowable as deduction. [ Indian Medical Council ( Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics ) Regulations 2002, R. 6.8. 1(d) ]

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Referral commission paid to doctors – Violation of the professional conduct- Not allowable as deduction. [ Indian Medical Council ( Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics ) Regulations 2002, R. 6.8. 1(d) ]

Stemade Biotech P.Ltd v. Dy .CIT (2022) 195 ITD 346 ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline.org.

S. 32: Depreciation – Asset purchased from and leased back – Entitle depreciation -Assessment – Direction of the Tribunal to follow the Judgement of Special Bench – While giving effect High Court decided contrary to the Judgement of Special Bench – Assessing Officer is bound to follow the order of High Court -Asset purchased from and leased back – Entitle depreciation – Business expenditure – Amount paid fees paid to ITC Classic Finance Ltd has direct nexus with acquisition of the machinery from RSEB – Allowable as deduction . [ S. 50, 143(3), 254(1)]

Star Chemicals (Bom) Pvt .Ltd v. Dy.CIT (Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Order passed without considering the replies of the assessee – Assessed income was Rs 10, 07 05, 88, 04 , 543 ) Rupees One lakh seven hundred and five crores eighty lakhs four thousand five hundred and forty -three only) – Information to suggest – arbitrary, cryptic and without application of mind – not considering the response of the Assessee – Mechanical approval – Order under section 148A(d) set aside to the stage of the show cause Notice. (S. 147, 148 , 148A(b), 151 , Art , 226 ]

Divya Capital One (P ) Ltd v. ACIT (Delhi)(HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 90: Double taxation relief – Long term capital gains – Transfer of shares – Beneficial Owner – cannot be assumed or inferred – AO to decide whether the concept of “beneficial owner” is inbuilt in the scheme of Article 13 – Matter remanded – DTAA-India – Mauritius. [ S. 143(3),154 , Art . 10, 11 , 13(4) ]

Blackstone FP Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 138 taxmann.com 328 (Mum)(Trib) www.itatonlne .org