Law Library

To load any of the case law it is recommended that you press ‘Ctrl + F’ and type the case law you are looking for.

• A Kowsalya Bai vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court):S. 206AA PAN law read down to not apply to assessees without taxable income.
• A. G. Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) – S. 147 reopening reasons need not be supplied within limitation period.
• ACIT vs. Biraj Investment Pvt. Ltd (Gujarat High Court): Transaction of “sale” of “pledged” shares at loss to a group company with object to set-off loss against gains is not a “colourable transaction”.
• ACIT vs. Champion Commercial Co Ltd (ITAT Kolkata): S. 14A & Rule 8D(2)(ii): Interest incurred on taxable income has also to be excluded to avoid incongruity & in view of Department’s stand before High Court.
• ACIT vs. GE Plastics India Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad): Non-Compete rights are an “intangible asset” eligible for depreciation.
• General Motors India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court): Unabsorbed depreciation of AYs 1997-98 to 2001-02 is eligible for relief granted by amended s. 32(2) in AY 2002-03.
• ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd (Supreme Court): S. 147 Reopening on “change of opinion” is not permissible.
• ACIT vs. M/s. Catholic Relief Services (ITAT Delhi) -TDS: Extended time limit in s. 201(3) Proviso does not save proceedings initiated before 1.4.2010 even if order passed after that date.
• ACIT vs. M/s. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (Supreme Court): S. 271(1)(c) Expl 5 immunity available even if tax not paid by due date of ROI.
• ACIT vs. Raj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) (ITAT Jaipur) – S. 54EC limit of Rs. 50L applies to the transaction & not financial year.
• ACIT vs. Shree Ram Lime Products Ltd (ITAT Jodhpur Special Bench)S. 158BE: A panchnama which does not record a search does not extend limitation.
• ACIT vs. Shri M.K. Gurumurthy (ITAT Bangalore) – S. 194C default does not result in s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance if TDS paid before ROI due date.
• ACIT vs. SIL Investment Ltd (ITAT Delhi) – S. 14A: Onus is on AO to show expenditure is incurred to earn tax-free income.
• ACIT vs. Spray Engineering Devices Ltd (ITAT Chandigarh): Value of shares allotted free of cost to employees is deductible revenue expenditure.
• ACIT vs. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd (Supreme Court) – S. 36(1)(iii): S. A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) to be reconsidered.
• ADIT vs. BHEL-GE-Gas Turbine Servicing (ITAT Hyderabad): Fees for “routine technical repairs” not assessable as “fees for technical services”.
• AIMS Oxygen Pvt. Ltd vs. WTO: Property subject to ULCA restrictions cannot be valued at market value.
• Ajit Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (Supreme Court) – Judge alleged to have “outsourced” judgements can be dismissed without opportunity of hearing or enquiry.
• Akil Gulamali Somji vs. ITO (ITAT Pune) – Failure To Obtain JCIT’s Approval Renders s. 153C Assessment Order Void.
• Alpha Projects Society P. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) – S. 40(a)(ia): Special Bench verdict cannot be followed in view of High Court verdict.
• All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – Entire law on what is “Additional Ground” & power of Tribunal to admit it reviewed.
• Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) -Dept hauled up for CPC Fiasco & unnecessarily harassing assessee but spared of costs on the ground that AO & CIT(A) were “only doing their duty”.
• Alstom Transport SA vs. DIT (AAR) – Composite contract cannot be split to exempt profits from offshore supply of goods. A joint contract constitutes an AOP despite separate responsibility of parties.
• Areva T&D India Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) – S. 32(1)(ii): Business information, contracts, records etc are “intangible assets” & eligible for depreciation.
• Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court): S. 80IA: In absence of separate books, AO entitled to estimate eligible profits.
• Aspi Ginwala vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) – S. 54EC limit of Rs. 50L does not apply to the transaction but financial year. Delay in investing within 6 M owing to non-availability of bonds to be excused.
• Auchtel Products Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – No S. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance without showing how assessee’s method is wrong.
• Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd vs. ACIT (Karnataka High Court): 5 Member Special Bench Transfer Pricing verdict affirmed without examining merits.
• AVM Capital Services Private Limited (Bombay High Court): Tax planning is legitimate if it is within the framework of the law.
• Basu Distributors Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) -S. 40A(3): Financial crises may be “exceptional or unavoidable circumstance” for cash payment.
• B4U International Holdings Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Despite Retro Law By Finance Act 2012, “Royalty” Not Taxable as DTAA prevails
• Birendra Kumar Singh vs. UOI (Patna High Court): High Court Fumes & Sends Dept’s Top Brass To Jail For “Gross Contempt”.
• CCI Ltd vs. JCIT (Karnataka High Court)
• Chanchal Kumar Sircar vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkota) – sec. 54EC investment time limit begins from date of receipt of consideration
• Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd (Supreme Court) – Delay by Department in filing appeal cannot be mechanically condoned.
• CIT vs. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association (Supreme Court): S. 194H TDS: “Discount” in a “sale” is not “commission or brokerage”.
• CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (Bombay High Court): S. 147 Reopening in the absence of “fresh tangible material” is invalid.
• CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (Delhi High Court): S. 153A applies if incriminating material is found even if assessments are completed.
• CIT vs. Awadh Hotels (P) Ltd (Allahabad High Court) – S. 234A, 234B & 234C interest, though mandatory, is not payable if AO does not direct it to be charged in assessment order.
• CIT vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt.Ltd (Bombay High Court) – S. 10A/ 10B deduction allowable without set off of losses of non-eligible units.
• CIT vs. Cargil Global Trading Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) -S. 194A TDS: Discounting Charges Is Not “Interest”.
• CIT vs. CA Computer Associates India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court): Transfer Pricing: Arms’ length royalty allowable even in respect of unpaid sales.
• CIT vs. Cello Plast (Bombay High Court): Fact that s. 54EC bonds were available during the 6 months & that there were alternative bonds available irrelevant if the bonds not available on the last date.
• CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court) – To “make available” technical knowledge, mere provision of service is not enough; the payer must be enabled to perform the service himself.
• CIT vs. Dynavision Limited (Supreme Court):S. 145: Excise duty need not be included in closing stock.
• CIT vs. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court): Tribunal has no power to extend stay beyond 365 days even if assessee not at fault.
• CIT vs. Gujarat Flouro Chemicals (Supreme Court): Sandik Asia 280 ITR 643 (SC) is not correct and should be reconsidered.
• CIT vs. Hans Christian Gass (Bombay High Court): Ignorance of law caused by complicated provisions amounts to “bona fide belief”.
• CIT vs. Hariprasad Bhojnagarwala (Gujarat High Court – Full Bench) – S. 23(2): A HUF is “owner occupying house for own residence”.
• CIT vs. Havells India Ltd (Delhi High Court) – S. 9(1)(vii)(b): Export sales is not a “source of income outside India”. Expenditure on fully convertible debentures is deductible.
• CIT vs. High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd (Madras High Court) -Sale & Lease Back transactions are not “sham” transactions.
• CIT vs. ITAT (Delhi High Court) : Tribunal has the power to stay proceedings to give effect to s. 263 revision order. Plea as to jurisdiction of AO/CIT, even if given up, can always be raised.
• CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (Gauhati High Court Full Bench) – S. 263 Revision: Conflict Amongst Judgements Resolved.
• CIT vs. Jai Hind CHS Ltd (Bombay High Court): TDR Premium received by Co-op Hsg Society from its members is exempt on ground of “mutuality”.
• CIT vs. Jaydev H. Raja (Bombay High Court): “Hypothetical Tax” of expatriate employee is not assessable as income.
• CIT vs. Kan Construction And Colonizers (P) Ltd (Allahabad High Court) – S. 50C does not apply to land & building held as ‘stock-in-trade’.
• CIT vs. Machino Plastic Ltd (Delhi High Court) In remand: Sec. 14A disallowance cannot exceed original disallowance.
• CIT vs. M/s.Delite Enterprises (Bombay High Court):No s. 14A disallowance if there is no tax-free income.
• CIT vs. M/s.Vandana Properties (Bombay High Court) – S. 80-IB(10): Multiple Housing Projects On 1 Acre Plot Permissible.
• CIT vs. M/s Virgin Creations (Calcutta High Court) – S. 40(a)(ia) TDS amendment to give extended time for payment is retrospective.
• CIT vs. M/s Ranka & Ranka (Karnataka High Court) – CBDT’s decision to confine the effect of low tax effect Instruction to fresh appeals is contrary to the object of s. 268A & the National Litigation Policy. 
• CIT vs. M/s Sangameshwara Associates (Karnataka High Court) – Despite offer of income in s. 148 ROI, s. 271(1)(c) penalty leviable.
• CIT vs. M/s. The Asian Marketing (Rajasthan High Court) – S. 40(b)(v): Partnership deed need not quantify partner’s remuneration.
• CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd (Supreme Court) – Despite concealment, no s. 271(1)(c) penalty if s. 115JB book profits assessed.
• CIT vs. P. D. Abrahm (Kerala High Court) – Unaccounted expenditure to be set-off against unaccounted income despite Expl. to s. 37(1) & proviso to s. 69C. Govt. criticized for apathy towards black money.
• CIT vs. Promain Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Tribunal has to deal with factual findings of AO & give reasons for its conclusion.
• CIT vs. Punjab Breweries Ltd (Punjab & Haryana High Court) – Tribunal’s order not dealing with finding of “sham” transaction is “perverse”.
• CIT vs. PVP Ventures Limited (Madras High Court): Difference between market price & option price of ESOP shares deductible.
• CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Objective tests to classify shares gains as STCG vs. biz profits laid down.
• CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (Karnataka High Court) – sec 54F does not require construction to be complete within specified period.
• CIT vs. Shambhubhai Mahadev Ahir (Gujarat High Court): Question whether Low Tax Effect Circular can apply to pending appeals referred to Full Bench,
• CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd (Supreme Court): “Goodwill” is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s 32.
•  CIT vs. Societex: No s. 271(1)(c) penalty if wrong claim caused by “bona fide mistake”.
• CIT vs. Sureshchandra Durgaprasad Khatod (HUF) (Gujarat High Court): Low Tax Effect Circular has retrospective effect & applies to pending appeals.
• CIT vs. The Instalment Supply Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Difference between “Finance Lease” & “Operational Lease”.
• CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (Karnataka High Court) – Commission to CMD for personal guarantee may be treated as “ploy to divert funds”.
• CIT vs. Usha International Ltd (Delhi High Court – Full Bench): S. 147: There is no “change of opinion” if AO does not specifically apply his mind.
• CIT vs. Vaibhav J. Shah (HUF) (Gujarat High Court) : Tests laid down to distinguish shares gains as LTCG/STCG vs. business profits.
• CIT vs. Varsha Dilip Kohle (Bombay High Court) – Low Tax Effect Circular is retrospective & dept Must Show “Cascading Effect”.
• CIT vs. Vinay Mittal (Delhi High Court) – Tests to determine where shares gain is capital gains or business profits.
• CIT vs. Virendra & Co (Bombay High Court): Low Tax Effect Circular is retrospective & applies to pending appeals.
• CIT vs. Virgo Marketing Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) – High Court to consider whether Low Tax Effect Circular has retrospective effect.
• CIT vs. Wander Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court): If Quantum Appeal admitted by Court, s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings may be kept in abeyance till the decision of the High Court on the merits.
• Comptroller of Income Tax v AZP (Singapore High Court) – Information cannot be disclosed u/A 28 of DTAA in absence of strong connection between requested information & India’s tax laws.
• Court On Its Own Motion vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – High Court Takes Notice of TDS Refund Harassment by Dept & Demands Answers.
• Crompton Greaves Ltd. VS. The DCIT (TDS) – TDS Liability On Payer If Payee Not Assessed
• Columbia Sportswear Company vs. DIT : “Binding” AAR Rulings can be challenged but not directly in the Supreme Court.
• Council of ICAI Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta (High Court) – “Gross Professional Misconduct” – CA issuing wrong sec 80HHC certificate is guilty.
• Darwabshaw B Cursetjee Sons Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT KolKata Third Member): S. 271(1)(c): Professional’s opinion in support of claim does not per se make it bona fide. Third Member cannot sit in judgment over dissenting Members’ views.
• DCIT vs. Andaman Sea Food Pvt Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) :Consultancy fees, if not taxable as “fees for technical services”, is not taxable as “other income”
• DCIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd (ITAT Mumbai): ITAT view that s. 14A applies to shares held as stock-in-trade cannot be followed.
• DCIT vs. Rajrani Exports Pvt Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) – Fact that payment is used for ‘illegal’ purpose does not attract Expl to s. 37(1)
• DCIT vs. Tejinder Singh (ITAT Kolkota)- S. 50C does not apply to transfer of tenancy/ leasehold rights.
• DCIT vs. Summit Securities Ltd (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – For s. 50B “Slump Sale”, liabilities reflected in “negative net worth” cannot be treated as “consideration” but the resultant “negative net worth” has to be added to the “consideration”.
• DDIT vs. B4U International Holdings Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) – Tax implications of a “Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment” explained.
• DIT vs. Balaji Shipping UK Ltd (Bombay High Court) : Article 9: Income from “slot charter” is exempt as income from “operation of ships”.
• DIT vs. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd (Delhi High Court) – To “make available” technical knowledge, mere provision of service is not enough; the payer must be enabled to perform the service himself.
• Drilcos (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court):Lumpsum technical know-how fees are deductible only u/s 35AB & not s. 37(1).Case Law: DIT vs. Nokia Networks OY (Delhi High Court): Offshore supply profits not taxable. Ishikawajima still good law. Despite retrospective amendments to s. 9(1)(vi) no tax on software in view of DTAA.
• DIT vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc (Uttarakhand High Court): Tax on employees’ salary is a “non-monetary” perquisite exempt u/s 10(10CC).
• DIC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd vs. ADIT (ITAT Kolkata): “Education cess” is “additional surcharge” & is included in “tax” under DTAA. If DTAA caps the rate of “tax” payable, cess is not payable by foreign assessee
• D.K.Srivastava vs. UOI & Ors (Central Administrative Tribunal) -Concern expressed at “mutual acrimony” between Members of Chandigarh Bench.
• Dongfang Electric Corporation vs. DDIT (ITAT Kolkota):Law on taxability of “turnkey contracts” for offshore & onshore supply explained.
• Firoz Tin Factory vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court):Power under S. 220(1) proviso to reduce period for payment of tax to be exercised after application of mind & recording reasons
• Ganesh Housing Corporation Limited vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court) – S. 147 Reopening, even within 4 years, on basis of retrospective amendment to s. 80-IB(10) invalid.
• Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) – S. 147/151: Sanction of CIT Instead of JCIT Renders Reopening Void.
• Gillette Group India Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi): Sec 14A & Rule 8D Disallowance Cannot Exceed Total Expenditure.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC (Supreme Court): Income-tax details can be disclosed under RTI only if in “larger public interest”.
• Global Green Company Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi): S. 271(1)(c) penalty not valid if “satisfaction” not recorded in the assessment order.
• Gujarat_Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd vs. CIT (Gujarat High Court).
• Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court): S. 147: If claim not considered by AO, there is no “change of opinion”.
• ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court): S. 147 reopening based solely on audit department’s objection is void.
• IndusInd Bank Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) -Difference between “Finance Lease” & “Operating Lease” Explained.
• Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court): S. 143(1) intimation cannot be reopened u/s 147 in absence of “tangible material”.
• ITO vs. Rachana Constructions (ITAT Pune) – Notice of hearing of the department’s appeal could not be served on the assessee through post at the address given in Form 36.
• ITO vs. Taru Leading Edge (P) Ltd (ITAT Delhi): S. 40(a)(ia) amendment by Finance Act 2010 is retrospective.
• ITO vs. Yasin Moosa Godil (ITAT Ahmedabad) – S. 50C is a deeming provision which does not apply to “rights in land & building”.
• Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. DCIT (TDS) (Allahabad High Court) – S. 194H: TDS Defaulter is liable only for interest & penalty & not the tax.
• J.B. Roy vs. DCIT (Allahabad High Court): A Retrospective Amendment does not affect completed matters.
• JCIT vs. American Express Bank Ltd (ITAT Mumbai): S. 14A applies even if the securities are held as stock-in-trade. Article 7(3) limitation applies to all expenditure & not only to s. 44C H.O. expenditure.
• Justice Sam P Bharucha vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai): No s. 14A disallowance in absence of “live nexus” between expenditure & tax-free income.
• Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) : In fresh assessment passed pursuant to remand by ITAT, assessee cannot be worse off than what he was in the original assessment order.
• Killick Nixon Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) –  Transaction within four corners of law can be treated as “sham” & “colourable device” by looking at “human probabilities”.
• Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench): Right to set-off capital loss is a “vested right” not affected by amendment.
• KPMG India Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai): Rendering of services is not “supply of knowledge or information” to be “royalty”.
• KRA Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) : Conflict on deductibility of Shares PMS fee has to be decided in favour of assessee.
• Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court): Lease Premium is capital expenditure & not allowable as “advance rent”.
• L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Allahabad High Court) – If Prima Facie case is in favour Of the assessee, full demand should be stayed.
• Lopamudra Misra vs. ACIT (Orissa High Court):  Sec. 220(6): AO should not adopt “extra legal steps” of threatening or inducing the assessee for tax recovery.
• Madhu Jayanti International Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkota Special Bench)
• Mahesh Nemichandra Ganeshwade vs. ITO (ITAT Pune) – S. 54EC: If investment within 6 months of transfer is impossible, then relief available if investment made within 6 months of receipt of consideration.
• Manan Corporation vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) : S. 80-IB(10)(d) ceiling on commercial area inserted w.e.f. 1.4.05 does not apply to projects approved before that date.
• Management Committee Paradeep Port vs. ITO (Orissa High Court): High Court Seethes With Fury At Dept For “Dirty Games” With Assessees.
• Maral Overseas Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Indore Special Bench) – S. 10B: Extension of relief period available for existing units.
• Md. Serajuddin & Brothers vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court): For s. 40(b)(v) limits, P&L A/c profits (including non-business income) have to be taken & not only “profits & gains of business” as computed u/s 28 to 43D.
• Mehru Electrical & Engg. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Rajasthan High Court) – Despite “Last Chance” appeal should be adjourned if there is sufficient cause.
• Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam Special Bench) – S. 40(a)(ia) TDS Disallowance applies only to amounts “payable” as at 31st March and not to amounts already “paid” during the year.
• Millenniun Houseware vs. CIT (Gujarat High Court) – Q whether the s. 127(2) transfer order is invalid for want of reasons referred to Full Bench.
• Narendra Gehlaut vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) – Despite borrowing, gains on shares assessable as STCG & not business profits.
• Netapp BV vs. The AAR (Delhi High Court) : Mere filing of Return of Income disbars an advance ruling application.
• Nishith Madanlal Desai vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) – AO & appellate authorities are not mere tax gatherers; have duty to be fair to the assessee 
• National Petroleum Construction Company vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi): Even a “Turnkey” contract has to be split into various components.
• NTPC SAIL Power Company Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) : Law on non-taxing pre-construction interest good law despite s. 36(1)(iii) Proviso.
• Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court): No s. 271(1)(c) penalty for a “bona fide/ inadvertent/ human error”.
• Qualcomm Inc vs. ADIT (Delhi High Court): S. 147: In addition To allegation, there must be finding of failure to disclose material facts.
• Qualcomm Incorporated vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi): Judicial conflict whether Tribunal has power to extend stay beyond 365 days has to be resolved in favour of the assessee.
• Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi): In computing book profits u/s 115JA/JB, if actual expenditure to earn tax-free income not debited in P&L A/c, sec. 14A cannot apply.
• Piyush C. Mehta vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – S. 40(a)(ia): Amendment by FA 2010 w.e.f 1.4.2010 is retrospective.
• Radheshyam Sarda vs. ACIT (ITAT Indore) : No s. 271(1)(c) penalty even if revised ROI filed after detection but before issue of s. 148 notice.
• Rajamahendri Shipping & Oil Field Services Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Vizag) – S. 40(a)(ia): Non-jurisdictional High Court prevails over Special Bench.
• Rajasthani Sammelan Sarvoday vs. ADIT (Bombay High Court): Sec. 220(6): AO reminded that he is not mere “tax gatherer” & cautioned to follow guidelines for recovery of tax.
• Ramakrishna Vedanta Math vs. ITO: Before imposing s. 201 TDS Liability, AO to show that recipient has not paid tax.
• Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Though Expl. 10 to s. 43(1) does not apply to loan waiver, treatment in books of reducing amount waived from asset cost means that WDV has to be reduced.
• Sushila Suresh Malge vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai): AO hauled up for repeatedly disregarding ITAT’s directions & directed to pay costs.
• State Bank of Mauritius Limited vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai): Whether s. 43B & s. 14A disallowance can be made under Article 7(3) of the India-Mauritius DTAA.
• Tata Toya Radiators vs. UOI( Bombay High Court – S. 220(6): AO must pass reasoned order to deal with stay applications.
• Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Third Member): S. 143(1) assessment cannot be reopened u/s 147 in absence of “new material”.
• Tecnimont ICB Private Limited vs. ACIT: A “controlled transaction” can never be regarded as “comparable” even if at ALP.
• Tulip Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – S. 255(4): Bench cannot refuse to give effect to Third Member’s opinion.
• UTI Mutual Fund Stay Recovery.
• Van Oord ACZ Marine Contractors BV vs. ADIT (ITAT Chennai): Fact that third party invoices are paid does not necessarily show “reimbursement”.Vishnu Anant Mahajan vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad Special Bench): S. 14A disallowance applies to partner’s share of profits. Depreciation is not “expenditure” & cannot be disallowed u/s 14A.
• Vijaya Silk House (Bangalore) Limited vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) : Retrospective effect given to 3rd & 4th Provisos to s. 80HHC is ultra vires.
• V.R.A. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd vs. UOI (P&H High Court) – S. 143(2): “Issue” of notice is equivalent to its “service”.
• Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd vs. Dept of Income-tax (Gujarat High Court): S. 391-394 scheme of arrangement is not a “tax avoidance scheme”.
• WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai): S. 10A(9) applied prospectively but its omission has retrospective effect.