| Section 2(7A) |
Omkareshwar Mines and Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. ITO |
Where a case was transferred from Kolkata to Ahmedabad by a section 127 order, only the transferee office had jurisdiction over all proceedings, making a reassessment notice issued by the Kolkata office invalid and subject to quashing. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 9 |
Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V. v. DIT (International Taxation) |
Differential tax rates for foreign companies do not violate the non-discrimination clause (Article 24(2) of India-Netherlands DTAA) as foreign and domestic companies are not in the same circumstances; Indian PE is ineligible for domestic company tax rates. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 9 |
Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V. v. DIT (International Taxation) |
Interest paid by an Indian branch of a foreign bank to its head office/foreign branches is deductible under Article 7 of the DTAA, but is subject to TDS compliance, failing which disallowance under section 40(a)(i) is justified. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 9 |
Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V. v. DIT (International Taxation) |
Where an Indian PE of a Netherlands entity operates as a separate enterprise under Article 7, interest received by the PE from its foreign head office/branches constitutes taxable business income and cannot be disregarded as payment to self or shielded by mutuality. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 9 |
WPP Media India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT |
Where assessee paid DDT at a higher rate on dividends to a Singapore shareholder and subsequently claimed restriction to 10 percent under India-Singapore DTAA, admission of additional ground and restoration to Assessing Officer was warranted. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 14A |
Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where an assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year, no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was permissible even if substantial investments existed and interest was debited. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 32 |
Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V. v. DIT (International Taxation) |
ATMs function as specialised computing devices with technical parity to computers and serve as primary digital transaction interfaces; their classification as computers for higher depreciation was justified. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 32 |
Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee used loading trucks solely for transporting its own goods and claimed 30 percent depreciation, Assessing Officer wrongly halved claimed depreciation instead of applying the correct 15 percent rate to written down value. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 35D |
Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd. v. DCIT |
For deduction under section 35D for public issue expenses, inclusion of share premium in capital employed was unsustainable; entire borrowings per financials along with issued share capital, excluding share premium, must be considered. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 36(1)(iii) |
HCY Industrial Parks (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit |
Disallowance of interest expenditure under sections 36(1)(iii)/37(1) without specific findings on utilization or business purpose on rupee-denominated CCDs issued to a Singapore AE was unsustainable and required to be set aside. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
WPP Media India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT |
Market research and media measurement charges incurred for commercial expediency, substantiated by agreements and invoices, were rightly allowed as business expenditure. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where salary expenditure was fully paid through banking channels with TDS and PF compliance, an unverified inter-personnel refund behind the company’s back did not warrant disallowance without fresh examination. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V. v. DIT (International Taxation) |
Where a non-resident banking company leased motor vehicles for employee use for business facilitation without ownership intention, entire rental was deductible as revenue expenditure, ignoring accounting standard (AS-19) bifurcations. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
ESOP expenses claimed by an assessee-company are allowable under section 37 as various High Courts have permitted such claims, rejecting grounds of notional or contingent nature. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 47 |
PCIT v. Atria Wind (Kadambur) (P.) Ltd. |
Prior sale of assets and changes in partners’ capital before a firm’s succession by a company did not attract proviso (c) to section 47(xiii) since no benefit other than share allotment was received; succession was not a transfer, allowing section 80-IA deduction. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 54 |
Biswaranjan Sen v. ITO |
Where capital gains from two residential properties were invested in two adjacent units but unutilized capital gains were not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before filing returns, exemption was restricted to amounts actually invested. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69 |
Jusbinder Kour v. ITO |
Where Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed an appeal ex parte without adjudicating additions under sections 69 and 69A on merits, the cryptic non-speaking order violated section 250(6) and was remanded. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69A |
Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd. v. DCIT |
Additions based on seized diaries were justified where the assessee failed to offer explanations, but jottings lacking clarity on nature or year were deleted. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69C |
Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where commission liability yielded unexplained expenditure of Rs. 77,81,782 but Rs. 70,00,000 was already disclosed as additional income, only the differential Rs. 7,81,782 was liable to be added. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69C |
Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd. v. DCIT |
Additions for unexplained cash payments for GDR conversion based solely on seized excel sheets lacking details or link to assessee could not be made without corroborative evidence. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 80-IA |
PCIT-1 v. Mahalaxmai Infra Projects Ltd. |
Where an assessee engaged in road construction claimed deduction under section 80-IA(4) as a developer, revenue’s objection did not raise a substantial question of law warranting appeal admission under section 260A. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 80-IA |
PCIT-1 v. Mahalaxmai Infra Projects Ltd. |
Where lower authorities allowed section 80-IA(4) road construction deduction after holding assessee satisfied conditions as developer without perversity, appeal seeking further factual scrutiny was not maintainable. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 80P |
PCIT v. Gujarat State Co-Op. Housing Finance Corp. Ltd. |
Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is allowable to a co-operative society on interest earned from investments with a co-operative bank, as a co-operative bank is also a co-operative society. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92 |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
Transfer pricing matters involving internal CUP availability, AE determination under sections 92A(1) and 92A(2), and comparable selection required fresh examination of services and comparables. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92 |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
Companies functionally dissimilar to IT support or software development services are not valid comparables and must be excluded. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92 |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
Benchmarking international sale of traded goods to AE using gross margin as PLI under ‘any other method’ by comparing raw material purchase price and finished goods sale price was valid for Rule 10AB redetermination. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92 |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
Companies engaged in manufacturing and trading readymade ethnic wear cannot be compared to baby/kids products trading companies without segmental data. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92 |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
Market research and consultancy services companies can be included as comparables for digital marketing support services, subject to filter and segmental verification. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
Companies lacking segmental results for marketing support services in annual reports cannot be considered comparable to digital marketing support providers. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
Online gaming and entertainment companies earning from advertising/licensing are functionally dissimilar to IT support/software development services. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
Companies impacted by extraordinary events like amalgamation in the relevant year cannot be valid comparables for the trading segment. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
Toxsl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is functionally comparable to software development/IT support segments and qualifies for inclusion in the comparables set. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Brainbees Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT |
Enterprise voice and data cloud telephony service providers are functionally dissimilar and cannot be comparables for IT support and software development services. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
HCY Industrial Parks (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit |
Determination of NIL interest ALP on rupee-denominated CCDs issued to a Singapore AE by treating them as equity was unsustainable; pre-conversion interest requires no nil adjustment. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 94B |
HCY Industrial Parks (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit |
Where interest is disallowed under section 94B alongside a nil ALP adjustment on CCDs, only one disallowance survives; Assessing Officer must verify computation and effect consequential carry-forwards. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 132 |
Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd. v. DCIT |
An addition of Rs. 13.24 crores made solely on an uncorroborated director’s statement during search without direct document linking could not be sustained. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 148 |
Satya Narayanamurthy Kaki v. NFAC |
Notices under section 148 issued on or after 01.04.2021 for assessment year 2015-16 were not sustainable in law in view of Supreme Court rulings on TOLA, 2020. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 149 |
Akula Dhatthamma v. ITO |
Where notice under section 148 was issued after three years from the end of the assessment year based on multi-vendor transaction information, but the assessee’s share was under Rs. 50 lakhs, it was barred by limitation. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 153A |
Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd. v. DCIT |
For assessments with incriminating search documents, the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction under section 153A to reassess entire income, whereas completed assessments require incriminating material. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 201 |
Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd. v. DCIT |
Interest paid for delayed remittance of TDS, being compensatory rather than income-tax penal nature, qualifies as deductible business expenditure. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 234B |
Biswaranjan Sen v. ITO |
Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D on resultant tax liability arising from advance tax default is consequential and mandatory. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 254 |
DRG Analytics and Insights (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT |
Omission of a specific adjudication on a ground regarding interest on delayed receivables constituted a mistake apparent from record, warranting partial recall under section 254(2). |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 271AAC |
Amita Suresh Shah v. ITO |
Where penalty proceedings were explicitly initiated under section 270A for misreporting but not under section 271AAC(1), subsequent imposition under section 271AAC(1) by treating it as a typographical error was impermissible. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 271B |
University of Calcutta v. DCIT (Exemptions) |
Where a State-funded university existing solely for education was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab), the requirement for audit under section 44AB did not arise, invalidating section 271B penalty. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
