| Section 4 |
GE Vernova International LLC v. ACIT |
Where assessee-company recognized revenue from invoices but subsequently reversed amounts through credit notes after commercial settlements, real income did not accrue to that extent and only real income can be taxed. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 9 |
GE Vernova International LLC v. ACIT |
Where assessee, a US-based company, rendered offshore support services and received reimbursement and fees without making technical knowledge or skills available to Indian recipients, such receipts were not FTS. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 9 |
GE Vernova International LLC v. ACIT |
Where US-based company supplied goods from outside India under offshore sale arrangements and furnished evidence that no services were rendered, receipts could not be treated as fees for technical or included services. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 9 |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT |
Where a US bank’s Indian branch rendered correspondent banking and investor services, excess of inter-office service charges over related expenditure was not includible in profits attributable to Indian PE. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 10(23C) |
CIT v. Deccan Education Society |
Where society running educational institutions was denied exemption for generating surplus, generating reasonable surplus did not disqualify exemption once statutory requirements under section 10(23C)(iiiab) were met. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 11 |
Kinkini v. ITO |
Where assessee-trust filed audit report in Form 10BB belatedly but it was available on record before issuance of section 143(1)(a) intimation, denial of exemption solely on account of delayed filing was unjustified. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 14A |
CSS Corp (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee had sufficient own funds, disallowance of interest expenditure under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was unwarranted, and only investments earning exempt income should be considered under Rule 8D(2)(iii). |
Click here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 14A |
Lintas India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT |
Where assessee made suo motu disallowance under section 14A, disallowance for expenditure relating to exempt income cannot exceed exempt income earned during the year. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 28(i) |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT |
Where securities were held as trading assets and consistently valued at lower of cost or market value per RBI guidelines, diminution in value was allowable as a deduction in computing banking business income. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 32 |
Navkar Share and Stock Brokers v. ACIT |
Where company disclosed all material facts during original scrutiny, reopening assessment beyond four years for alleged escapement of income due to business loss set-off, unabsorbed depreciation, and delayed TDS was unjustified. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT |
Where repo interest was separately recorded as expenditure on repurchase of securities and liability accrued in relevant year, deduction could not be denied by treating it as a notional loss on unmatured forex contracts. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Haryana Liquors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where contractual expenditure was disallowed for alleged lack of service evidence despite ledgers, invoices, banking payments, and Form 16A, disallowance based on broad group-level allegations was not sustainable. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(3) |
Rekha Agarwal v. ITO |
Where wholesale agricultural trader made cash payments exceeding limits through an intermediary to procure produce from farmers, payments did not qualify as payments to cultivators under Rule 6DD(e), making disallowance justified. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(3) |
Rekha Agarwal v. ITO |
Where wholesale agricultural trader made cash purchases routed through an agent and invoked Rule 6DD(k), remand was required to verify genuineness and terms of agency and satisfaction of prescribed conditions. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 44C |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT |
Where an expatriate CEO exclusively managed Indian banking operations, salary paid directly by Head Office outside India was allowable under section 37(1) and could not be restricted under section 44C. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69 |
Kamuni Mallesh v. Dy. CIT |
Where reassessment for property purchase made over multiple years was initiated without proper year-wise examination and approval under section 151 was granted mechanically, reassessment proceedings were unsustainable. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69A |
DCIT v. Ivar Estates (P.) Ltd. |
Where real estate assessees were searched and differences between ERP/booked rates and estimated median rates were treated as unaccounted receipts without specific buyer evidence, deletion of additions by CIT(A) was justified. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69C |
Haryana Liquors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where Assessing Officer inferred that assessee must have paid commission for bogus contractual expenditure and estimated addition at 6 per cent without specific evidence, addition was not sustainable under section 69C. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT |
Where foreign bank’s Indian branch performed marketing and relationship functions, merchant banking, underwriting, and broking companies were functionally dissimilar and could not be retained as comparables on industry similarity alone. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT |
Where US bank claimed deduction for Head Office expenditure allocated to Indian branch, determination of arm’s length price at nil was unsustainable and matter was remanded to verify actual incurrence and attribution. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT |
Where US bank claimed hub expenditure supporting Indian banking operations, ALP at nil was unsustainable, and absence of debit notes/invoices did not disprove services, requiring verification and remand. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT |
Where assessee benchmarked cheque-processing services under TNMM, a company engaged in specialized web-mapping services was functionally dissimilar and its exclusion as a comparable was justified. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT |
Where corporate and Head Office expenses were allocated using a common employee-cost ratio, wholesale allocation without examining each item’s nexus with the segment was unsustainable. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT |
Where Rule 10B(4) gives primacy to contemporaneous financial data, earlier-year data may be considered only if it reveals facts capable of influencing transfer price determination; substantial margin variation alone does not justify multi-year averaging. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Lintas India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT |
Where advertising company was subjected to TP adjustment for intra-group support services with ALP determined at nil despite evidence of service descriptions and client coordination, a general rejection was unjustified. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Lintas India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT |
Where advertising company reported management service fees paid to overseas group entities, foreign location of AE did not justify rejecting it as tested party or setting ALP at nil without fresh benchmarking. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
CSS Corp (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Transfer pricing adjustment is required to be confined strictly to international transactions with associated enterprises and not to margin at the entity level. |
Click here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
CSS Corp (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where IT and ITES assessee provided segmental results showing different AE and non-AE risk profiles, TPO was not justified in rejecting IT segment segmentation merely due to lack of audit or timing of certification. |
Click here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
CSS Corp (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where dispute related to upper turnover filter in selecting comparables for international transactions, an upper turnover filter of INR 200 crores was appropriate. |
Click here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 143 |
Fusion Health Care (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT |
Where notice under section 143(2) was issued by a Prescribed Income-tax Authority for a case centralized with the AO without petitioner challenging Board notification, notice could not be treated as without jurisdiction. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 149 |
Sureshbhai Ranchhodlal Thakkar v. ACIT |
Where notice under section 148 for AY 2012-13 was issued after search in September 2021 beyond time limits under old sections 149(1)(b), 153A, and 153C, first proviso to section 149(1) applied, rendering notice time-barred. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 151 |
Kamuni Mallesh v. Dy. CIT |
Where approval under section 151 was obtained prior to 01.04.2021, provisions of section 292BC applicable from 01.04.2021 cannot be invoked to validate such prior approval for notice purposes. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
