2016

DIGEST OF CASE LAWS

DIRECT TAXES

Supreme Court
High Courts
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Authority for Advance Ruling
Allied Laws
Reference to CBDT Circulars and
Articles

(For Private Circulation)

Compiled by Research team

i
Disclaimer — The contents of this digest are solely for educational and informal purposes.
It does not constitute professional advice or formal documentation. While due care and
sincere efforts have been made in preparing this digest to avoid errors or omissions.
The existence of mistakes and omissions herein are not ruled out. Any mistake ,error or
discrepancy noted may be brought to the notice, which shall be considered in the next
digest. Neither the authors, publishers, nor itatonline.org and its affiliates accept any
liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of inaccurate or incomplete
information from this digest nor action can be taken in reliance thereon. It is requested
that, to avoid any doubt, the reader should cross check all the facts, law and contents of
the digest with original reports referred by the authors. No part of this digest should be
distributed or copied (Except for non-commercial use), without express written permission
of itatonlne.org. We also acknowledge that the digest is prepared on referring the following
Journals and magazines, we sincerely acknowledge their contribution. (ACCJ, BCAJ, CTC,
CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib.), TTJ, Taxman, itatonline.org, ctconline.org and taxmann.
com. Contribution by the authors to bring out this digest is only on honorary basis to help
the professionals to find out the case laws reported in various journals or magazines at
one stop.

All disputes are subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction.

Compiled by Research team of AIFTP Journal Committee and KSA LEGAL CHAMBERS

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere thanks to the research team and the editorial team of the Journal Committee
of the All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP), the editorial team of www.
itatonline.org and the research team of KSA Legal Chambers, staff members of the
AIFTP, ITAT Bar Association, Mumbai and KSA Legal Chambers.

Sincere thanks to the Editorial and Research team

of the AIFTP Journal Committee
Editorial Team
Adv. Aarti Vissanji
CA. H. N. Motiwalla
Adv. Keshav B. Bhujle
Adv. M. Subramanian
CA. Pradip Kapasi
Adv. Subhash S. Shetty

Research Team
Adv. Aditya Ajgaonkar
Adv. Arati Sathe
Adv. Ajay Singh
CA. Aliasger Rampurawala
Adv. Bharath Janarthanan
CA. Dhanesh Bafna
Adv. Dharan Gandhi
Adv .Gautam Thacker
Adv. Harsh Kothari
Adv. Hiten Chande
Adv. Jitendra Singh
Adv. Kalpesh Turalkar
CA. Ketan Ved
Adv. Neelam Jadhav
CA. Nikhil R. Tiwari
Adv. Paras S. Savla
Adv. Priyanka Jain
Adv. Prem Chandra Tripathi
Adv. Rahul Hakani
Adv. Rahul Sarda
Adv. Sashank Dundu
Adv. Viraj Mehta

iv
 PREFACE

2016 – Digest of Case Laws on Direct Taxes

We are glad to present “2016 – Digest of case laws on direct taxes”. This year’s digest
is the fifth year of our private publication for the reference of professional colleagues
who regularly appear before High Courts, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and
Commissioners of Income-tax (Appeals).

In this publication, our research team has digested section-wise, --- cases which are
reported in the year 2016 in various reports, journals, magazines and online media.
The cases are digested in the descending order of relevance, i.e. Supreme Court,
High Courts, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Authority for Advance Ruling.

We have made an attempt to make editorial notes in some of the cases where the
judgment of Tribunal is affirmed or reversed by High Courts or where an SLP is
granted or rejected by the Supreme Court against the judgments of High Courts.

Important case laws on allied laws and interpretation of taxing statutes are also
digested. A separate chapter on reference to circulars and articles is also provided
which are arranged section wise and subject wise.

The index to case laws is prepared in alphabetical order. For instance, where the
Revenue is the petitioner/appellant, the index is shown as under:

Case Presented in index of case laws as;

CIT v. Miruri & Co. Ltd. Miruri & Co Ltd.; CIT v.
ITO v. Infinera India Ltd. Infinera India Ltd.; ITO v.
DCIT v. Suthanther Assumtha Suthanther Assumtha; DCIT v.
Jitendra Kumar Soneja v. ITO Jitendra Kumar Soneja v. ITO

This digest is for private circulation in print form with the objective of facilitating
quick reference for professional colleagues. The entire publication is hosted on
www.itatonline.org for the benefit of tax professionals and public at large. Those
who desire to refer to digest may download and store the same on their desktops/
laptops, mobiles and iPads.

While referring to the digest, if any error or mistake is noticed by readers, they
are requested to inform us by e-mail or in writing, which will enable us to take

v
Preface

corrective measure in our next publication. We hope this publication will serve as
a useful reference to busy professionals.

For Research and Editorial team,

Yours sincerely,

Dr. K. Shivaram
Senior Advocate

15th September, 2017

vi
 ABBREVIATIONS
Journals, Reports, Magazines and online
Ahmedabad Chartered Accountants Journal – ACAJ
All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Journal – AIFTPJ
All India Tax Tribunal judgements – TTJ
All India Reporter – AIR
The Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal – BCAJ
Bombay Law Reporter – Bom.L.R.
The Chamber of Tax Consultants – The Chamber’s Journal
Company Cases – Comp-Cas
Current Tax Reporter – CTR
Direct Taxes Reporter – DTR
Excise Law Times – E.L.T.
Goods and Service Tax Reports – GSTR
Income-tax Tribunal Decisions – ITD
ITR’s Tribunal – Tax Reports – ITR (Trib.)
Income-tax Reports – ITR
Supreme Court Cases – SCC
Selected Orders of ITAT – SOT
Taxman – Taxman
VAT and Services Tax cases – VST
Online
www.bombayhighcourt.nic,in
www.ctconline.org
www.delhihighcourt.nic.in
www.itatonline.org
www.manupatra.com
www.taxlawsonline.com
www.taxmann.com

vii
Abbreviations

Abbreviations – Authorities
Additional Commissioners of Income-tax – Addl. CIT
Authority for Advance Rulings – AAR
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax – ACIT
Assistant Directors of Income-tax – ADIT
Assessing Officer – AO
Appellate Tribunal – ITAT
Central Board of Direct Taxes – CBDT
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax – CCIT
Commissioner of Income-tax – CIT
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – CIT(A)
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax – Dy. CIT
Director of Income-tax – DIT
Director General of Income-tax – DGI
High Court – HC
Income-tax Officer – ITO
Income-tax Settlement Commission – ITSC
Joint Commissioner of Income-tax – JCIT
Joint Directors of Income-tax – JDIT
Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax – PCIT
Principal Director General of Income Tax – PDGI
Supreme Court – SC
Tax Recovery Officer – TRO
Transfer Pricing Officer – TPO
Union of India – UOI
Courts
Supreme Court – (SC)
High Court – (HC)
Allahabad – (All.)
Andhra Pradesh – (T&AP)

viii
 Abbreviations

Assam – (Guwahati)
Bombay – (Bom.)
Bombay – Aurangabad
Bombay – (Nagpur)
Bombay – (Panaji-Goa)
Calcutta – (Cal.)
Chhattisgarh – (Chhattisgarh)
Delhi – (Delhi)
Gauhati – (Gauhati)
Gujarat – (Guj.)
Himachal Pradesh – (HP)
Jammu & Kashmir – (J&K)
Jharkhand – (Jharkhand)
Karnataka – (Karn.)
Kerala – (Ker.)
Madhya Pradesh – (MP)
Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior) – (MP)
Madras – (Mad.)
Orissa – (Orissa)
Patna – (Patna)
Punjab & Haryana – (P&H)
Rajasthan – (Raj.)
Sikkim – (Sikkim)
Uttarakhand – (Uttarakhand)
Uttar Pradesh – (UP)
Tribunal Benches
Agra – (Agra)
Ahmedabad – (Ahd.)
Allahabad – (All.)
Amirtsar – (Asr.)

ix
Abbreviations

Bangalore – (Bang.)
Bilaspur – (Bilaspur)
Calcutta – (Kol.)
Chandigarh – (Chd.)
Chennai – (Chennai)
Cochin – (Cochin)
Cuttack – (Cuttack)
Delhi – (Delhi)
Guwahati – (Gau.)
Hyderabad – (Hyd.)
Indore – (Indore)
Jabalpur – (Jabalpur)
Jaipur – (Jp.)
Jodhpur – (Jodh.)
Lucknow – (Luck.)
Mumbai – (Mum.)
Nagpur – (Nag.)
Panaji – (Panaji)
Patna – (Patna)
Pune – (Pune)
Raipur – (Raipur)
Rajkot – (Rajkot)
Ranchi – (Ranchi)
Surat – (Srt)
Vishakhapatnam – (Vishakha)

x
 Case Laws Index

Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
A
A. I. Developer (P) Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 178 TTJ 332/46 ITR 321 (Delhi) 1167 361
(Trib.)
A. K. Capital Markets Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 528 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1252 389
A. P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 156 870 262
ITD 410 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 1319 412
A. P. Refinery P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2016) 45 ITR 724 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1865 612
A. S. Precision Machines P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 440/(2017) 146 DTR 2328 784
161/293 CTR 340 (P&H)(HC)
Aakash Nidhi Builders & Developers; CIT v. * (Bom.)(HC) 1321 413
Aanchal Hotels (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 138 DTR 169/287 CTR 233/241 1327 416
Taxman 108 (Uttarakhand)(HC)
Aavkar Infrastructure Company v. Dy. CIT (2016) 238 Taxman 644/136 1807 590
DTR 405/290 CTR 413 (Guj.)(HC)
ABB Lummus Heat Transfer BV; ADIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 168/135 DTR 1494 473
233/177 TTJ 82 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Abbot India Limited v. ACIT (2016) 50 ITR 369 (Mum.)(Trib.) 380 130
Abc Classes PRS v. PCIT (2016) 387 ITR 119 (All.)(HC) 1766 573
Abdul Hameed Khan Mohammed; ITO v. * (2016) 156 ITD 778 (Chennai) 1080 331
(Trib.)
Aberdeen Asset Management Plc., In re (2016) 381 ITR 55/283 CTR 387/ 117 38
65 taxmann.com 246/131 DTR 1 (AAR)]
Aberdeen Claims Administration Inc., In re (2016) 381 ITR 55/283 CTR 117 38
387/65 taxmann.com 246/131 DTR 1 (AAR)]
Abha Gupta v. DCIT (2016) 385 ITR 452/240 Taxman 285/(2017) 146 DTR 1790 583
149 (Delhi)(HC)
Abhijit Subhash Gaikwad v. Dy. CIT (2015) 70 SOT 429/60 taxmann.com 1073 330
259 (Pune)(Trib.)
Abhinandan Investment Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 282 CTR 466 (Delhi)(HC) 978 297
Abhishek Estate P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 47 ITR 50 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 2462 835
Abid Ali Khan v. ITO (2016) 389 ITR 82/144 DTR 372/(2017) 291 CTR 2178 732
312 (SC)
Aboobucker; ITO v. * (2016) 157 ITD 717/141 DTR 78/180 TTJ 510 12 4
(Chennai)(Trib.)

xi
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Limited v. ADIT (2016) 176 TTJ 115 (Mum.) 959 289
(Trib.)
Abu Dhabi Ship Building PJSC; DCIT v. * (2016) 159 ITD 438/ 138 DTR 2181 733
124/ 179 TTJ 537 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Accel Frontline Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 46 ITR 138 (Chennai)(Trib.) 270 97
384 132
557 179
2368 800
Accordis Beheer B V v. DIT (IT) (2016) 157 ITD 373/176 TTJ 406/136 DTR 160 52
65 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Accura Bikes (P.) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 275/(2017) 146 DTR 222 1331 417
(SMC) (Ahd.)(Trib.)
ACE Manufacturing Systems Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (LTU) (2016) 380 ITR 1314 411
432/136 DTR 313/287 CTR 573 (Karn.)(HC)
Actis Global Services (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 175 TTJ 506/141 DTR 40 1471 465
(Delhi)(Trib.)
Adani Enterprises Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 241 Taxman 542/(2017) 152 DTR 354 123
102 (Guj.)(HC) 1380 435
Adani Welspun Exploration Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2016) 48 ITR 533 (Ahd.) 181 61
(Trib.)
Aditya Medisales Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 242 Taxman 228 (Guj.)(HC) 1771 575
Admire Sign and Display P. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 51 ITR 81 (Mum.)(Trib.) 602 190
Adobe Systems Incorporated v. ADIT (2016) 137 DTR 255/240 Taxman 1821 595
353/292 CTR 407 (HC)(Delhi)
ADP (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 70 SOT 716 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 1426 451
Advance Power Display Systems Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 607/237 688 213
Taxman 16/138 DTR 282/290 CTR 330 (Bom.)(HC) 1404 444
Advanta India Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 137 DTR 233/179 TTJ 50 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1427 451
Advantage Strategic Consulting P. Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 389 ITR 87 (Mad.) 1595 515
(HC)
Advocates Welfare Fund of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu v. DIT (2016) 160 340 118
ITD 66/50 ITR 209/ 182 TTJ 922 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Advocates Welfares Fund of The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu v. DDIT (E) 336 117
(2016) 50 ITR 209 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Aegis Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2016) 131 DTR 172 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1428 452
Aerens Development and Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www. 104 33
itatonline.org

xii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Aggarwal & Co. (Engg. & Eractors) v. DY. CIT (2016) 160 ITD 540 (Asr.) 1329 416
(Trib.)
Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 693 216
381 ITR 469/238 Taxman 17/131 DTR 289/284 CTR 211 (Delhi)(HC)
Agilent Technologies India (P.) Ltd.; DDIT v. * (2016) 176 TTJ 415/67 1505 478
taxmann.com 95/136 DTR 25 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Agson Global P. Ltd. v. ITSC (2016) 380 ITR 342/237 Taxman 158/282 CTR 2170 727
441/130 DTR 1 (Delhi)(HC)
Agya Ram v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 545/241 ITR 407/141 DTR 133/290 CTR 1785 580
539 (Delhi)(HC)
Ahmed Hussain (S. S. M.) v. ITO (2016) 48 ITR 417 (Chennai)(Trib.) 2185 734
Air Cargo Agents Association of India; CIT v. * (2016) 135 DTR 169/286 89 29
CTR 340/239 Taxman 212 (Bom.)(HC)
Air France; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 142 (Delhi)(HC) 1988 657
Air India Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 284/237 Taxman 639/131 DTR 2238 754
81/289 CTR 287 (Bom.)(HC) 2317 780
Air India Ltd.; Dy. DIT (IT) v. * (2016) 158 ITD 555/178 TTJ 121/135 DTR 1977 652
153 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan (Smt.) v. Addl. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 987/140 DTR 2498 846
297/180 TTJ 643 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Aiswarya Prints Dyeing & Printings Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2016) 48 717 222
ITR 810 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 290 CTR 110/72 taxmann.com 2143 715
148/(2017) 391 ITR 33 (Guj.)(HC)
Ajay Electronic; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 272 (P&H)(HC) 2217 746
Ajay Kalia; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 187/135 DTR 147/178 TTJ 507 2209 743
(Delhi) (Trib.) 1117 343
Ajay trader v. DCIT (Jaipur)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2469 837
Ajit Ramchandra Jadhav v. ACIT (2016) 178 TTJ 204/135 DTR 1 (Pune) 2442 829
(Trib.)
Aker Contracting FP ASA, In re (2016) 381 ITR 489/237 Taxman 427/283 957 288
CTR 250/ 130 DTR 321 (AAR)
Akshata Mercantile (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 290 CTR 381/143 DTR 1592 514
360/76 taxmann.com 228/(2017) 391 ITR 236 (Bom.)(HC)
Alabra Shipping Pte. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 175 TTJ 359/129 DTR 43 (Rajkot) 1982 655
(Trib.)

xiii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust; DIT(E) v. * (2016) 383 ITR 517/238 278 99
Taxman 148/133 DTR 72 (Karn.)(HC)
Alapatt Jewellery; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 338/242 Taxman 129 (Ker.)(HC) 568 182
Alcatel–Lucent France v. ADIT (2016) 384 ITR 113/240 Taxman 414/136 1794 584
DTR 209/287 CTR 488 (Delhi)(HC)
Alcove Industries Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 226 (Cal.)(HC) 689 214
Alfa Sai Minerals (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 216 (Bom.)(HC) 24 8
All Angels Educational Society v. CCIT (2016) 388 ITR 475/241 Taxman 216 77
421/289 CTR 637 (Mad.)(HC)
All India Pingalwara Cahritable Society; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 158 ITD 1969 648
410/178 TTJ 602/47 ITR 1 (Amritsar)(Trib.); (2016) 141 DTR 153 (Amritsar) 1538 492
(Trib.) 1537 492
All India Union Bank Officers Federation v. UOI (2016) 385 ITR 114/240 408 138
Taxman 92/141 DTR 101/289 CTR 61 (Mad.)(HC)
All Saints College Society; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 634 (Uttarakhand)(HC) 2295 772
Allahabad Bank v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 693/46 ITR 678 (Kol.)(Trib.) 610 192
615 194
Allied Strips Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 384 ITR 424/69 taxmann.com 444 (Delhi) 1734 563
(HC)
Allscripts (India) (P) Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 140 DTR 188/288 CTR 675/241 1372 431
Taxman 545 (Guj.)(HC)
Alpha Nipon Innovatives Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 145 DTR 206/291 CTR 309 1387 437
(Guj.)(HC)
Alpha Plus Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 136 (SMC) (Mum.) 766 235
(Trib.)
Alstom Project India Limited; CIT v. * (2017) 394 ITR 141 (Bom.)(HC) 1377 433
Alstom Project Ltd.; DCIT v. * (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1481 470
Alvares & Thomas; CIT v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 456 (Karn.)(HC) 907 273
Amadeus India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 52 ITR 83 (Delhi)(Trib.) 248 89
1420 449
1421 450
Amaltas Associates v. ITO (2016) 389 ITR 340 (Guj.)(HC) 1753 569
Amaltas Associates; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 175 (Guj.)(HC) 1320 412
Aman Khera; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 33/288 CTR 381/76 taxmann.com 2418 820
185 (Delhi)(HC)
Aman Khera; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 33/288 CTR 381/76 taxmann.com 1676 545
185/140 DTR 1 (Delhi)(HC)

xiv
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Amar Mukesh Shah; ACIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 234 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1930 635
Amar Ujala Publication Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 54/72 taxmann.com 575 184
159 (Delhi)(HC)
Amarjit Singh v. ITO (2016) 48 ITR 622 (Amritsar)(Trib.) 2 1
1692 549
Amarvathy Textiles; ACIT v. * (2015) 125 DTR 321/70 SOT 648/173 TTJ 851 256
641 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Amaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO(2016) 383 ITR 498/140 DTR 19/288 1826 597
CTR 340 (Bom.)(HC)
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 48 ITR 210 (Ahd.) 1113 342
(Trib.)
Ambit Realty (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 139 DTR 43/288 CTR 50 (Bom.)(HC) 2285 769
American Express (I) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 177 TTJ 33 (Delhi)(UO) 1469 465
(Trib.) 253 91
American Express Banking Corporation v. CIT (2016) 286 CTR 126/134 406 137
DTR 273 (SC)
Amin Merchant v. Chairman CBEC (SC); www.itatonline.org 2543 869
Amit Engineers v. ACIT (2016) 156 ITD 556 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1866 612
Amit K. Jain alias Anil K. Jain.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 113/(2017) 148 1957 644
DTR 110/293 CTR 185 (Guj.)(HC)
Amit K. Shah; ITO v. * (2016) 159 ITD 767 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1847 606
Amit Paccraft; Dy. CIT v. * (2015) 68 SOT 213 (URO) (Delhi)(Trib.) 2401 812
Amita Kochar v. ACIT (2016) 389 ITR 345 (Patna)(HC) 1952 643
Amitabh Bachchan; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 200/135 DTR 73/286 CTR 2322 782
113/240 Taxman 221 (SC)
Amore Jewels (P.) Ltd. v. P CIT (2016) 290 CTR 681/241 Taxman 321/144 1730 562
DTR 101 (Bom.)(HC)
AMP Spinning & Weaving Mills (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 243 Taxman 1/ 1243 385
(2017) 393 ITR 349/150 DTR 390 (Guj.)(HC)
Amrik Singh v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 329/181 TTJ 95 (Asr.)(Trib.) 1844 606
Amul Research & Development Association v. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 454/182 19 6
TTJ 794/145 DTR 30 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
Anagram Wellington Assets Management Co. Ltd.; CIT(TDS) v. * (2016) 2070 685
389 ITR 654/73 taxmann.com 164 (Guj.)(HC)
Anand Mehta v. UOI (2016) 385 ITR 379 (Delhi)(HC) 2410 817
Andhra University; ACIT v. * (2016) 158 ITD 389 (Visakha)(Trib.) 1985 656

xv
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Anil Girishbhai Darji; ITO v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 146 (Guj.)(HC) 2270 764
Anil Kumar & Co.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 702/67 Taxman.com 278 (Karn.) 1682 546
(HC)
Anil Mahavir Gupta v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1908 628
Anil Printers Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 158 ITD 665/143 DTR 295/182 TTJ 528 170
112 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Anita Kochar (Smt.) v. ACIT (2016) 388 ITR 500/73 taxmann.com 96 2199 740
(Mad.)(HC)
Anita Raj Hingorani v. ITO (2016) 46 CCH 715/50 ITR 63 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1163 360
Anita Rani (Mrs.) v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 59 (Delhi)(Trib.) 429 144
1258 392
Anjana Devi Agarwal v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 702 (Kol.)(Trib.) 999 305
Anju Jindal (Smt.); CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 418 (P&H)(HC) 632 198
Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 373/241 415 140
Taxman 418 (Delhi)(HC) 488 160
Ansaldo Energia SPA v. CIT (IT) (2016) 384 ITR 312/240 Taxman 107/ 2145 716
(2017) 148 DTR 250/293 CTR 461 (Mad.)(HC)
Anuben Lalabhai Bharwad v. PCIT (2016) 289 CTR 49/241 Taxman 511 1591 513
(Guj.)(HC)
Anugrah Varhney v. ITO (Agra)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1878 617
Anupam Biswas v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 445 (SMC) (Kol.)(Trib.) 2248 757
Anupam Nagalia; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 442 (P&H)(HC) 2228 750
Anupam Rasayan India Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 243 Taxman 472 (Guj.)(HC) 1724 559
Anurag Radhesham Attal v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 867/(2017) 183 TTJ 902 272
423/147 DTR 207 (Pune)(Trib.) 1325 415
Anurag Rice Mills; CIT v. * (2016) 282 CTR 200/129 DTR 157 (Patna)(HC) 1149 356
ANZ Grindlays Bank v. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 156/133 DTR 90/238 Taxman 882 266
128/290 CTR 188 (Delhi)(HC)
AOL Online India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 437 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1430 452
Apeejay Education Society v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 33 (Amritsar)(Trib.) 1837 604
Apeejay Medical Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 297/68 taxmann.com 10 210 75
(Cal.)(HC)
Apeejay Medical Research and Welfare Association (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 211 75
383 ITR 79/239 Taxman 266/286 CTR 182/135 DTR 145 (Cal.)(HC)
Apeejay Surrendera Park Hotels Ltd v. UOI (2016) 383 ITR 697/134 DTR 2034 672
169/287 CTR 161 (Delhi)(HC)

xvi
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
APL Co. Pte. Ltd.; DIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 84 (Bom.)(HC) 127 40
Apollo Fine Vest (I) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom.)(HC) 500 163
Applitech Solutions Limited; Pr. CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 602 (Guj.) 2126 709
(HC)
Arihant Aluminium Corporation v. ACIT (2016) 388 ITR 450/69 taxmann. 1915 631
com 286 (Karn.)(HC)
Arihantam Infraprojects (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 156 ITD 425/176 TTJ 562 180
202/132 DTR 105 (Pune)(Trib.)
Arjundev K. Khanna (HUF) v. ITO (2016) 241 Taxman 380 (Guj.)(HC) 964 291
Arora Fabrics (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 131 DTR 308/284 CTR 293 (P&H) 1970 648
(HC)
Arpit Land (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 139 DTR 43/288 CTR 50 (Bom.)(HC) 2285 769
Arun Mammen v. UOI (2016) 290 CTR 644/241 Taxman 135/(2017) 391 2156 720
ITR 23 (Mad.)(HC)
Arun Sunny v. CCIT (2016) 382 ITR 533 (Ker.)(HC) 1578 509
Arunbhai R. Naik v. ITO (2016) 131 DTR 402/284 CTR 284 (Guj.)(HC) 409 138
Arvik Properties and Investments P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 52 ITR 74 (Mum.) 1604 518
(Trib.)
Arvind Asmal Mehta v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 1177 365
Arvind Kumar v. ITO (2016) 180 TTJ 52 (UO)(Asr.)(Trib.) 1656 538
Arvinder Singh; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 179 (Delhi)(HC) 2320 781
Asha Ashar v. ITO (2016) 46 ITR 492 (Mum.)(Trib.) 452 151
431 145
Asha Trading Co.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 438 (Cal.)(HC) 1279 397
Asharam Ashram v. ITO (E) (2016) 386 ITR 222 (Guj.)(HC) 1779 578
Ashian Needles P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 144 (Delhi)(HC) 1793 584
2306 776
Ashiana Amar Developers v. ITO (2016) 46 ITR 17/178 ITR 474/136 DTR 1324 414
137 (Kol.) (Trib.)
Ashish P. Deora; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 214 (Bom.)(HC) 476 157
Ashok Kumar Mondal v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 521 (Kol.)(Trib.) 896 271
Ashok Kumar Sethi v. Dy. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 375/(2017) 244 Taxman 174 1974 650
(Mad.)(HC) 2554 872
Ashok Kumar v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 342/239 Taxman 436/290 CTR 450 1196 370
(Patna)(HC)

xvii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Ashok Piramal Management Corpn. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 234 805 244
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Ashok Prapann Sharma v. CIT (SC), www.itatonline.org 1108 341
Ashok Sharma v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 462/290 CTR 481/144 DTR 137/76 1107 340
taxmann.com 1 (SC)
Ashok Surana v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 267 (Cal.)(HC) 6 2
669 207
Ashwani Kumar Arora v. ACIT (2016) 50 ITR 37 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2444 830
Ashwani Kumar Arora v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2470 838
Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1230 382
Asian Advertising v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 145 (Mum.)(Trib.) 529 171
Asian Advertising v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 145 (Mum.)(Trib.) 767 235
Asian Financial Services Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 240 Taxman 192/(2017) 148 1245 386
DTR 105/293 CTR 240 (Cal.)(HC)
Asian Handicrafts; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 293/66 taxmann.com 38 (All.) 2327 784
(HC)
Asian Natural Resources India Ltd.; CIT v. * (2015) 235 Taxman 419/117 2169 726
DTR 426/(2016) 282 CTR 569 (MP)(HC)
Asian Paints (India) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 348 (Bom.)(HC) 630 198
Associated Electronics & Electrical Industries (Bangalore)(P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * 974 295
(2016) 65 taxmann.com 253/130 DTR 222 (Karn.)(HC)
ATN International Ltd.; DIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 8 (Cal.)(HC) 161 52
Atotech India Ltd.; PCIT v. * (P & H)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2416 820
Atulbhai Hiralal Shah v. Dy. CIT (2017) 244 Taxman 27 (Guj.)(HC) 1752 569
Audyogik Shikshan Mandal v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 1/176 TTJ 202 (TM) 350 121
(Pune)(Trib.)
Augustan Knitwear (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 741/180 TTJ 134 2485 842
(Chennai)(Trib.)
Autolite (India) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 143 DTR 98/180 TTJ 223 (Jaipur) 582 186
(Trib.)
Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 140/242 2280 767
taxman 101/290 CTR 485/144 DTR 166 (SC)
Avan Gidwani v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2190 736
Avantor Performance Materials India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 685/237 91 30
Taxman 603/282 CTR 494/130 DTR 33 (HP)(HC)
Avaya India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 160 ITD 179 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1434 453

xviii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Avineon India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 483 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 1483 470
AVT McCormick Ingredients Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 178 TTJ 99/137 DTR 1441 455
92/67 taxmann.com 322 (Chennai)(Trib.)
AVT McCormick Ingredients Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 178 TTJ 99/67 1442 455
taxmann.com 322/137 DTR 92/67 taxmann.com 322 (Chennai)(Trib.)
AVTEC Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 52 ITR 270 (Delhi)(Trib.) 517 168
AVTIEC Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 52 ITR 270 (Delhi)(Trib.) 262 94
Awasthi Traders v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 185 (SC) 946 285
Ayisha Fathima (Smt.); ITO v. * (2016) 160 ITD 377/182 TTJ 437 (Chennai) 10 3
(Trib.) 988 301
B
B. Arunkumar & Co; CIT v. * (Bom.)(HC) (Unreported) (2016) BCAJ- 1021 314
March-P. 46
B. Banamber and Co. v. ITO (2016) 48 ITR 41 (Cuttack)(Trib.) 1158 359
1691 549
B. D. Gupta & Sons v. ITO (2015) 70 SOT 16 (Delhi)(Trib.) 102 33
1976 651
B. J. N. Hotels Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 110 (Karn.)(HC) 1900 624
B. K. Jain v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 605 (P&H)(HC) 2336 787
B. L. International v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2484 842
B. L. Shah v. ACIT (2016) 131 DTR 265/284 CTR 165 (Bom.)HC) 410 139
B. M. Maniraju v. CIT (2015) 126 DTR 348/(2016) 282 CTR 108/(Karn.)(HC) 236 85
B. S. Abdur Rahman Institute of Science & Technology v. CCIT (2016) 141 219 78
DTR 60/289 CTR 631/78 taxmann.com 336 (Mad.)(HC)
B. Sudhakar Pai; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 159 ITD 875 (Bang.)(Trib.) 987 301
B.A. Research India Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 443/288 CTR 1309 408
399/137 DTR 369 (Guj.)(HC)
B.K. Jain v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 300 (P & H)(HC) 2420 821
B.M.J. Real Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 579 (P&H)(HC) 1047 322
B.P. Jain and Associates v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 423/67 taxmann.com 2530 862
332/137 DTR 288/287 CTR 334 (Delhi)(HC)
BA Continuum India P. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2015) 40 ITR 149/70 SOT 332 2076 690
(Hyd.)(Trib.)
Baan Global BV; ADIT (IT) v. * (2016) 49 ITR 73 (Mum.)(Trib.) 166 55
Baan Global BV; ADIT v. * (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org 173 59

xix
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust v. ITO (2015) 171 TTJ 25/ 1861 610
(2016) 158 ITD 965 (Chd.)(Trib.)
Baberwad Shiksha Samiti v. CIT (E) (2016) 47 ITR 218/134 DTR 65/177 2367 799
TTJ 380 (Jaipur)(Trib.)
Babita Lila v. UOI (2016) 387 ITR 305/243 Taxman 258/140 DTR 241/288 2567 878
CTR 489 (SC)
Babita Lila v. UOI (2016) 387 ITR 305/288 CTR 489/243 Taxman 258 (SC) 2517 855
2541 868
Babita Lila v. UOI (2016) 387 ITR 305/288 CTR 489/73 taxmann.com 32 2566 877
(SC)
Babulal K. Daga; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 114 (Guj.)(HC) 2331 786
Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority v. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 2249 757
571(Chd.)(Trib.)
Bahadursingh T. Waghela v. WTO (2016) 243 Taxman 86/(2017) 147 DTR 75 23
101/292 CTR 514 (Guj.)(HC)
Bahubali Neminath Muttin; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 608/242 Taxman 2296 772
279/140 DTR 57 (2017) 291 CTR 214 (Karn.)(HC)
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 259/(2017) 244 Taxman 31 (Bom.) 1673 543
(HC)
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 259/(2017) 244 Taxman 31/146 DTR 550 176
210 (Bom.)(HC) 1688 549
Balaben B. Trivedi (Smt.); DCIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 307(Ahd.)(Trib.) 1168 362
Baldev Singh and Co. v. CIT(2015) 60 taxmann.com 30/ (2016) 384 ITR 1652 536
91 (P&H)(HC)
Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 73 (Kol.)(Trib.) 811 246
Banarsi Sweets P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 172 (P&H)(HC) 2218 746
Banca Sella S.P.A. In re (2016) 387 ITR 358/242 Taxman 475/288 CTR 661 1011 310
(AAR)
Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 567 (Karn.) 275 98
(HC)
Bangalore Urban & Rural District Co-op Milk Producers Societies Members 310 107
and Employees Welfare Trust Bangalore Milk Union Ltd. v. DIT (E) (2016)
382 ITR 528 (Karn.)(HC)
Bank of Baroda v. ITO (2016) 288 CTR 478/73 taxmann.com 55 (Karn.)(HC) 2184 734
Bank of India v. ACIT (2016) 49 ITR 62 (Mum.)(Trib.) 375 129
708 221

xx
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Bank of Nova Scotia; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 550/237 Taxman 594/283 2492 844
CTR 128/130 DTR 240 (SC)
Banke Bihar Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib); www.itatonline.org 1871 614
Bansal Credits Ltd.; Dy.CIT v. * (2016) 51 ITR 44 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1159 359
Banwarilal Jain v. ITO (2016) 181 TTJ 341 (Luck.)(Trib.) 1845 606
Bastimal K. Jain v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 1078 331
Bata India Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 539/(2017) 152 DTR 145 (Cal.) 1888 620
(HC)
Bata India Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 179 TTJ 328/138 DTR 78 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1444 456
Batlivala & Karani Securities (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 812 246
924/180 TTJ 558 (Kol.)(Trib.) 135 43
Batra Palace P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 144 (P&H)(HC) 416 141
Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 381 ITR 227/237 1405 445
Taxman 24/283 CTR 296/129 DTR 201 (Delhi)(HC)
Bayath Kutchhi Dasha Oswal Jain Mahajan Trust; CIT v. * (2016) 243 313 108
Taxman 60 (Guj.)(HC)
Bayer Crop Science Limited v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 768 236
Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333/133 DTR 1831 600
53/237 Taxman 723 (Bom.)(HC)
BBC Worldwide Ltd. v. ADIT (IT) (2016) 383 ITR 197/239 Taxman 121/135 1736 563
DTR 86 (Delhi)(HC)
BDR Builders and Developers Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 111 (Delhi) 2171 728
(HC)
Bechtel International Inc v. DDIT (Mum.)(Trib.);www.itatonline.org 108 35
Bechtel International Inc. v. Dy. DIT (2016) 177 TTJ 58 (UO)(Mum.)(Trib.) 124 39
BEHR India Ltd. (No. 1); CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 419 (Bom.)(HC) 264 95
BEHR India Ltd. (No. 2); CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 459/74 taxmann.com 264 95
170 (Bom.)(HC)
BEHR India Ltd.; CIT v. * (No. 1) 389 ITR 419 (Bom.)(HC) 906 273
2212 744
Belgaum Merchants Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 1345 421
351 (Karn.)(HC)
Bell Ceramics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 242 Taxman 134 (Guj.)(HC) 646 202
Best & Crompton Engg. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2015) 43 ITR 600/(2016) 176 TTJ 2477 839
224 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Best Corporation Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 76 taxmann.com. 286 (Mad.)(HC) 1287 400

xxi
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Beta Cashew & Allied Products (P) Ltd. (2016) 139 DTR 233/242 Taxman 2137 712
373/289 CTR 564 (Ker.)(HC)
Beta Cashews & Allied Products (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 242 Taxman 2136 712
373/289 CTR 564 (Ker.)(HC)
Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 379 ITR 244/127 DTR 245/ 1967 647
(2016) 282 CTR 209 (Ker.)(HC)
Bhagwan Singh Palaria v. CIT (2016) 134 DTR 67 (Raj.)(HC) 2257 761
Bhai Gurudas Educational Trust v. CIT (2016) 177 TTJ 25 (UO) (Chd.) 322 110
(Trib.)
Bhai Mansa Singh Ji Welfare Society (Regd.) v. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 117 345 119
(Chd)(Trib.)
Bhanuprasad O. Trivedi; DCIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 307 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1168 362
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2017) 145 DTR 96/291 CTR 161 2012 665
(P&H)(HC)
Bharat Hi-Tech (Cement) P. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 176 TTJ 166 (Kol.)(Trib.) 773 237
921 278
1206 373
Bharat Hotels Ltd.; CIT (TDS) v. * (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 325/(2016) 384 2071 686
ITR 77/288 CTR 682/140 DTR 95 (Karn.)(HC)
Bharat Hotels Ltd.; CIT v. * (2015) 64 taxmann.com 14/(2016) 381 ITR 692 215
222 (Delhi)(HC)
Bharat Hotels Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 552/65 taxmann.com 39 (Delhi) 506 166
(HC)
Bharat Raojibhai Patel; ITO v. * (2016) 159 ITD 473 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1049 323
1097 336
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 847/175 TTJ 369/130 1305 407
DTR 161 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 141 DTR 16 (Delhi)(HC) 1297 404
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 371/289 CTR 1289 401
198/141 DTR 16 (Delhi)(HC)
Bharath Beedi Works (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 242 Taxman 492 (Karn.)(HC) 357 123
Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (2016) 47 ITR 418/178 TTJ 708 (Delhi) 188 64
(Trib.)
Bharti Hexacom Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 179 TTJ 25 (Delhi)(Trib.) 857 258
737 227
Bharti Overseas Pvt. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 417 (Delhi)(HC) 365 126

xxii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Bhaskar Power Projects (P.) Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 73 taxmann.com 382 2286 770
(Delhi)(HC)
Bhawani Silicate Industries; Pr. CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 596 (Raj.)(HC) 1687 548
Bhura Ram (Dantaramgarh Group) v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 259 (Raj.)(HC) 1661 540
Bhura Ram (Phulera Group) v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 259 (Raj.)(HC) 1661 540
Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 410/242 904 273
Taxman 142/287 CTR 556/139 DTR 16 (Patna)(HC) 929 280
2303 774
Bijal Investment Co. P. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 389 ITR 53/241 Taxman 435/ 963 291
(2017) 147 DTR 404 (Guj.)(HC)
Bijoy Kumar Jain; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 339/240 Taxman 438/139 DTR 2342 790
283 (Cal.)(HC)
Bikram Singh v. Dy. CIT (2016) 48 ITR 689 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2194 738
Bina Malpani v. ITO (2016) 180 TTJ 1 (UO)/50 ITR 48 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 514 167
Binaguri Tea Company P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 648/75 taxmann. 2254 759
com 106/(2017) 147 DTR 364 (Cal.)(HC)
Binani Cement Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 457/136 DTR 177/239 Taxman 2349 793
29/289 CTR 181 (Cal.)(HC)
Bindiya H. Malkani v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 87/138 DTR 46/287 CTR 184 62 19
(Bom.)(HC)
Bird Education Society for Travel & Tourism; ADIT v. * (2016) 160 ITD 319 109
18/181 TTJ 782/(2017) 147 DTR 169 (Delhi.)(Trib.)
Birla Corporation Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 131 DTR 153/ 284 CTR 97/238 2147 717
Taxamn 482 (Cal.) HC)
BOC Group Ltd.; Dy. CIT v.* (2016) 156 ITD 402 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1356 426
Bombay Chamber of Commerce & Industry v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 861 314 108
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Bombay Plaza (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 552/(2017) 184 TTJ 412/148 445 149
DTR 11 (Kol.)(Trib.)
Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 1050/(2017) 147 280 100
DTR 304 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 273/75 551 176
taxmann.com 264 (Bom.)(HC)
Bommidala Enterprises P. Ltd.; CIT v. *(2016) 389 ITR 1/242 Taxman 248 261 94
(SC)

xxiii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Bosch Ltd. v. Secretary, Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research Ministry 546 175
of Science & Technology, Government of India (2016) 239 Taxman 480/
(2017) 147 DTR 115/293 CTR 355 (Karn.)(HC)
Boston Scientific India P. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 177 TTJ 729/137 DTR 2468 837
153/49 ITR 435 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Bovis Lend Lease (India) (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2012) 208 Taxman 168 (Karn.) 2065 684
(HC)
BPL Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 301 (SC) 2525 859
Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 176 TTJ 716/140 DTR 207 (Chennai) 1838 604
(Trib.)
Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 46 ITR 212 (Chennai)(Trib.) 269 96
525 169
820 248
1567 501
1836 603
Bramhacorp Hotels & Resorts Ltd.; Dy.DIT (IT) v. * (2015) 70 SOT 25 2186 735
(Pune)(Trib.)
Bridal Jewellery Manufacturing Co. v. ITO (2016) 45 ITR 119/175 TTJ 257 254 91
(Delhi)(Trib.)
Bright Star Syntax P. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 387 ITR 231/240 Taxman 459/137 1781 579
DTR 362 (Bom.)(HC)
Brij Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 48 ITR 125 (Agra)(Trib.) 1690 549
Brijwasi Impex P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 320 (Delhi)(HC) 2227 749
Broadway Charitable Trust v. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 886 (Kol.)(Trib.) 343 119
Brothers Pharma P. Ltd. v. ITO (2015) 174 TTJ 773/(2016) 45 ITR 154 903 272
(Jaipur)(Trib.)
Brothers Pharma P. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 45 ITR 154 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 775 237
916 276
941 283
1220 378
BSR & Co.; ACIT v. * (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 863 261
BSR & Company; ACIT v. * (2016) 159 ITD 1068/182 TTJ 544 (Mum.) 807 244
(Trib.) 810 245
Bucyrus India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 45 ITR 216/176 TTJ 774/140 DTR 1868 612
202/65 taxmann.com 53 (Kol.)(Trib.)
Builders Association of India v. DCIT (2016) 46 ITR 295 (Mum.)(Trib.) 342 118

xxiv
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
C
C. Gopalaswamy; PCIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 307 (Karn.)(HC) 1092 335
2551 871
C. J. International Hotels Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 287/177 TTJ 2022 667
447/137 DTR 289 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2079 690
2206 742
C. J. International Hotels Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 177 TTJ 124/133 DTR 81 1859 609
(Delhi)(Trib.)
C. M. Mahadeva v. CIT (Karn.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 1828 598
C. R. Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) BCAJ - February-P. 34 (Mum.) 425 143
(Trib.)
CADD Centre v. ACIT (2016) 383 ITR 258/237 Taxman 401 (Mad.)(HC) 1014 311
Calcutta Knitwears; CIT v. * (2016) 131 DTR 308/284 CTR 293 (P&H)(HC) 1970 648
Calico Dyeing and Printing Mills P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 132 968 292
(Bom.)(HC)
California Design & Construction INC India, Chandigarh v. ITO (2016) 156 2471 838
ITD 919 (Chd.)(Trib.)
Cama Hotels Ltd; PCIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 770 (Guj.)(HC) 885 267
Cambay Investment Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 388 ITR 366/242 2330 785
Taxman 13 (Guj.)(HC)
Canara Bank; CIT (TDS) v. * (2016) 386 ITR 229 (P&H)(HC) 2000 660
Canara Bank; CIT (TDS) v. * (2016) 386 ITR 504/240 Taxman 249/289 CTR 1999 660
75/141 DTR 73 (All.)(HC)
Capgemini Business Services (I) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 1/178 TTJ 174 59
129 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Capgemini SA v. DCIT (2016) 160 ITD 13 (Mum.)(Trib.) 142 45
169 56
Capt. Avinash Chander Batra v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 604 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1027 315
Carlsberg India (P) Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 139 DTR 289/288 CTR 128 (Delhi) 2575 889
(HC)
Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 600 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1413 447
Carmelite Charitable Society; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 78 (SMC) 300 105
(Amritsar)(Trib.)
Carpi Tech SA v. ADIT (2017) 145 DTR 17 (Chennai)(Trib.) 143 46
Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 2269 764
441 (P&H)(HC)

xxv
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Carrier Race Technologies P. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 380 ITR 483/64 taxmann. 1402 443
com 252 (Mad.) (HC)
Casby Logistics P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 47 ITR 230 (Mum.)(Trib.) 385 132
939 282
583 186
Casio India Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 70 SOT 48 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1418 449
CBDT v. Regen Infrastructure and Services P. Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 138/ 1577 508
(2017) 244 Taxman 39 (Mad.)(HC)
C-Dot Alcatel-Lucent Research Centre (P.) Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 177 1416 448
TTJ 211 (Delhi)(Trib.)
CEAT Ltd. v. CBDT (2016) 383 ITR 300/ 240 Taxman 147/286 CTR 225/135 2138 713
DTR 50 (Delhi)(HC)
Cebon India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 502 (P&H)(HC) 633 199
926 279
Centauto Automotives (P.) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India (2016) 236 Taxman 2113 704
68 (MP)(HC)
Central Advertising Agency v. UOI (2016) 389 ITR 320 (Ker.)(HC) 2066 684
Central Scientific Instruments Organisation v. CIT (TDS) (2016) 385 ITR 2507 850
617/143 DTR 234 (P&H)(HC)
Central Warehousing Corporation Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 172 (Delhi.) 1815 592
(HC)
Cenzer Industries Ltd v. ITO (2016) 385 ITR 582/239 Taxman 543/287 CTR 664 206
219/138 DTR 37 (Bom.)(HC)
Cerner Health Care Solutions P. Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 45 ITR 207 (Bang.) 258 92
(Trib.) 875 264
Cerner Healthcare Solutions (P) Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 176 TTJ 63/140 DTR 257 92
191 (Bang.)(Trib.)
Chaitanya Properties (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 659/140 DTR 1733 562
224 (Karn.)(HC)
Chalasani Mallikarjuna Rao (Dr.); DCIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 721 (Visakh) 1075 330
(Trib.) 1051 323
1100 337
Champaklal S. Kasat v. DCIT (2016) 50 ITR 465 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1907 628
Chander Shekhar Aggarwal v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 626 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2068 685
Chandigarh Golf Club v. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 264/177 TTJ 47 (UO) (Chd.) 324 111
(Trib.)

xxvi
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Chandmal Sancheti v. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 313/181 TTJ 906 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 2086 693
2087 694
2088 694
Chandra Cement Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 143 DTR 41/(2017) 291 CTR 581/ 2403 813
(2017) 393 ITR 324 (Raj.)(HC)
Chandrakant R. Shrivastav v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 755/181 TTJ 713/(2017) 1176 364
152 DTR 72 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1234 382
Chandraprabhu Jain Swetamber Mandir v. ACIT (2016) 50 ITR 355 (Mum.) 305 106
(Trib.)
Chandrasekhar Maruti Musale v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 822/(2017) 183 TTJ 34 10
459 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Chandrasekhar Maruti v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 822/(2017) 183 TTJ 459/146 30 9
DTR 198 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Chandubhai Ambalal Prajapati v. ACIT (2016) 50 ITR 74 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 2450 831
Charanjit Singh v. CBDT (2016) 388 ITR 469 (P&H)(HC) 2393 809
Chaturbhuj Manoj Kumar v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 194 (Raj.)(HC) 1662 540
2547 870
Chaudhary Skin Trading Co. v. Pr. CIT (2016) 290 CTR 533/76 taxmann. 1590 513
com 169 (Delhi)(HC)
Chawara Educational Trust v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 281 (Pune)(Trib.) 297 104
1647 534
Chawla Chemtech (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 158 ITD 48 (Chd)(Trib.) 2502 848
Chenitan Color Chem (P.) Ltd v. ACIT (2015) 43 ITR 181/(2016) 156 ITD 826 250
509 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Cherokee India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 179 TTJ 9 2/ 136 DTR 353 2453 832
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Chetnaben J. Shah v. ITO (2016) 140 DTR 235/288 CTR 79 (Guj.)(HC) 1606 519
Chhaya P. Gangar (Ms). v. DCIT (2016) 47 ITR 328 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1927 634
1222 379
1170 362
1926 634
1928 634
1929 635
Chirakkal Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 490/239 Taxman 1342 420
417/286 CTR 439/135 DTR 361 (Ker.)(HC)
Chironji Lal Virendra Pal Saraswati Shaiksha parishad; CIT(E) v. * (2016) 2321 781
380 ITR 265 (All.)(HC)

xxvii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Chittoor Dist. Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 847 256
282/50 ITR 303 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
Choksi Vachharaj Makanji & Co. v. ACIT (2016) 243 Taxman 465 (Guj.) 1728 561
(HC)
Chunibhai Ranchhodbhai Dalwadi (Late) v. ACIT (2016) 388 ITR 130 1762 572
(Guj.)(HC)
Cincom System Inc v. DDIT (2016) 176 TTJ 245/131 DTR 345 (Delhi)(Trib.) 175 59
Cipla Ltd v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 52/290 CTR 387/141 DTR 73/73 2290 771
taxmann.com 22 (Bom.)(HC)
CISCO Systems Services v. JCIT (2016) 161 ITD 12 (Bang.)(Trib.) 814 246
Citi Bank N.A.; CIT v. * (SC); www.itatonline.org 618 195
Citrix R & D India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 136 DTR 335 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1419 449
CJ International Hotels Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 286 CTR 126/134 DTR 273 (SC) 406 137
CJ. International Hotels Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 177 TTJ 124 (Delhi)(Trib.) 760 234
Classic Concepts Home India P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 626 (Ker.)(HC) 2499 847
Classy The Antique Defend Furniture v. Dy. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 212/242 2214 745
Taxman 469 (Ker.)(HC)
Classy The Antique Defend Furniture v. Dy. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 212/242 1607 519
Taxman 469/(2017 293 CTR 373 (Ker.)(HC)
CMS Securities Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 47 ITR 378 (Mum.) (Trib) 605 191
Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2016) 157 ITD 310/136 DTR 150 48
241/177 TTJ 578 (Cochin)(Trib.) 193 67
Coimbatore District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd v. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 2006 663
266/137 DTR 193/288 CTR 53 (Mad.)(HC)
Commissioner, Belgaum Urban Development Authority v. CIT (2016) 382 1993 658
ITR 8/243 Taxman 237/136 DTR 96/286 CTR 371 (SC)
Competent Authority (SAFEM (FOP) and NDPS Act v. M. Khader Moideen 2574 888
(2016) 387 ITR 390 (Mad.)(HC)
Compucom Software Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 45 ITR 619 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 2476 839
Computer Point (I) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 441 (Bom.)(HC) 2277 766
Concord International; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 307 (Ker.)(HC) 1333 417
Contai Co-op. Bank Ltd v. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 144 (Cal.)(HC) 1341 420
Continental Carriers v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 102/135 DTR 293 (Delhi)(HC) 1334 418
Cooper Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 165/180 TTJ 727 710 221
(Pune)(Trib.)

xxviii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Copal Research India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 160 ITD 523/(2017) 152 1414 448
DTR 94 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Corbett Educational Society v. CIT (2016) 48 ITR 743/181 TTJ 315/142 335 116
DTR 335 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Cornell Overseas (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 160 ITD 373 (Delhi)(Trib.) 727 224
728 225
Cornerstone Brands Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 455 (Guj.)(HC) 1541 494
2123 707
Cornerstone Exports (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 238 Taxman 465 (Guj.)(HC) 579 185
Coromandel Oils (P) Ltd. v. TRO & Ors. (2016) 143 DTR 97 (2017) 244 2111 703
Taxman 165/291 CTR 600 (Mad.)(HC)
Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom)(HC); www.itatonline.org 1778 578
Corpo Systems Ltd., In re (2016) 389 ITR 29/239 Taxman 185/289 CTR 956 288
306 (AAR)
Correspondent Holy Cross Primary School v. CBDT (2016) 388 ITR 162/240 1987 656
Taxman 395/ 141 DTR 257/289 CTR 293 (Mad.)(HC)
Council for Citrus and Agri Juicing in Punjab v. CIT (TDS) (2016) 236 2063 683
Taxman 489 (P&H)(HC)
Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. B. K. Dhingra 2560 874
(2016) 243 Taxman 90 (Delhi)(HC)
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Devinder 2561 875
kumar Jain (2016) 242 Taxman 41 (Delhi)(HC)
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Gurvinder 2563 875
Singh (2016) 242 Taxman 36 (Delhi)(HC)
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Mahesh 2564 875
Kumar Gupta (2016) 242 Taxman 44 (Delhi)(HC)
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Rakesh Verma 2565 876
(2016) 242 Taxman 55 (Delhi)(HC)
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Uma 2562 875
Shanakar Jha (2016) 242 Taxman 49 (Delhi)(HC)
CREDAI Bengal v. CIT(E) (2016) 52 ITR 161 (Kol.)(Trib.) 289 102
Credit Lyonnais; DIT(IT) v. * (2016) 238 Taxman 157 (Bom.)(HC) 674 209
2055 680
Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 465/140 DTR 153/177 TTJ 1 2364 798
(Mum.)(Trib.)
CUB Pty Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 388 ITR 617/139 DTR 113/241 taxman 278/288 130 42
CTR 361 (Delhi)(HC)

xxix
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Cummins Ltd., In re (2016) 381 ITR 44/237 Taxman 693/283 CTR 241/130 200 70
DTR 353 (AAR)
CWT v. Mohan Exports India P. Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 252/70 taxmann.com 2533 865
220 (Delhi)(HC)
CWT v. Suman Dhamija (2016) 382 ITR 343 (Delhi)(HC) 2535 865
Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 377 130
648/181 TTJ 556 (Bang.)(Trib.) 511 166
712 221
Cyient Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2015) 70 SOT 741( Hyd.)(Trib.) 133 42
D
D & H Enterprises; PCIT v. * (2016) 241 Taxman 157 (Guj.)(HC) 1131 350
D. B. Corp. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 162 (Guj.)(HC) 1359 427
D. Chetan & Co; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 356/(2017) 390 ITR 36/151 463 154
DTR 277 (Bom.)(HC)
D. Devadass v. ITO (2016) 48 ITR 613 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1094 336
D. E. Shaw India Software (P) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 594/175 TTJ 2210 743
492/129 DTR 199 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
D. H. Patkar & Co. v. ITO (2016) BCAJ-April-P. 32 (Mum.)(Trib.) 797 242
D. H. Patkar and Co. v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 82 (Mum.)(Trib.) 751 232
D. Ramgopla v. M. Kalpalatha Rajan, ACIT (2016) 288 CTR 354/241 1586 512
Taxman 15 (Mad.)(HC)
D. S. (India) Jewelmart P. Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 387 ITR 593 (All.)(HC) 1599 516
D. Srinivas Vyas v. ITO (2016) 73 taxmann.com 4 (Mad.)(HC) 625 197
D.C. Mills P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 64 (Ker.)(HC) 2332 786
Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 46 ITR 70 (Mum.)(Trib.) 383 131
Daksh Business Process Services P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 49 ITR 49 (Delhi) 1415 448
(Trib.) 1424 451
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 137 DTR 217 (Delhi)(HC) 622 196
1891 622
Damodar Valley Corporation v. Add. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 415/139 DTR 1569 502
201/180 TTJ 82 (Kol.)(Trib.) 394 134
Damodar Valley Corporation v. DCIT (2016) 160 ITD 78/50 ITR 583/182 521 168
TTJ 765/(2017) 148 DTR 285 (Kol.)(Trib.)
Damsak Projects P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 45 ITR 278 (Mum.)(Trib.) 418 141
2384 806

xxx
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Datamine International Ltd. v. ADIT(IT) (2016) 158 ITD 84/178 TTJ 560/48 134 43
ITR 229 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Dattani Development; ACIT v. * (2017) 147 DTR 224 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1061 326
Davinder Kumar Bhasin; DCIT v. * (2015) 174 TTJ 844/128 DTR 218/(2016) 201 71
45 ITR 232 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1507 479
Dayawanati (Smt.) Through LH Smt. Sunita Gupta v. CIT (2016) 143 DTR 542 174
209 (Delhi)(HC)
DBS Bank Ltd. v. DDIT (2016) 157 ITD 476/176 TTJ 293 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1947 641
DBS Bank Ltd. v. Dy. IT(IT) (2016) 157 ITD 476/176 TTJ 293/131 DTR 121 825 250
(Mum.)(Trib.)
DDRC SRL Diagnostic (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 92/135 DTR 107/178 2024 668
TTJ 281 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2030 669
Deep Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 241 Taxman 355 (Guj.)(HC) 120 38
Deep Industries Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 238 Taxman 198 (Guj.)(HC) 2346 791
Deepak Sogani v. DCIT (2016) 158 ITD 533 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1238 384
Deepak Verma v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 154 (P&H)(HC) 1328 416
Defree Engineering (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 76 taxmann.com 11 (Mad.) 1282 398
(HC)
Dell India P. Ltd.; JCIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 310/287 CTR 695 (Karn.)(HC) 1814 592
Dell International Services India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 37 (Karn.) 681 211
(HC) 2233 752
Deloitte Consulting India (P) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 175 TTJ 492/129 DTR 2210 743
199 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
Deloitte Support Services India (P) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 175 TTJ 492/129 2210 743
DTR 199 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
Deloitte Tax Services India (P) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 175 TTJ 492/129 2210 743
DTR 199 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
Denso India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 324/133 DTR 33/240 Taxman 1398 442
713/287 CTR 597 (Delhi)(HC)
Desai Construction P. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 552 (Guj.)(HC) 1892 622
Det Norske Veritas A/S v. Addl. DIT (2016) 157 ITD 1022/178 TTJ 59 1468 465
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Det Norske Veritas A/S v. Addl. DIT (2016) 157 ITD 1022/178 TTJ 59/134 1464 463
DTR 97 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Dev Bhumi Industries v. CIT & Ors. (2016) 143 DTR 273/290 CTR 317 1587 512
(HP)(HC)

xxxi
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Devindraben I. Barot (Smt.) v. ITO (2016) 141 DTR 302/159 ITD 162 (Ahd.) 1053 324
(Trib.)
Devindraben I. Barot (Smt.) v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 162/182 TTJ 805 (Ahd.) 1050 323
(Trib.)
Devraj Infrastructures Ltd. v. Chairman/Member (Industrial Park) CIT 1288 400
(2016) 388 ITR 99/(2017) 145 DTR 131/292 CTR 58 (Guj.)(HC)
Devraj R. Agarwal v. ACIT (2016) 389 ITR 642 (Guj.)(HC) 1272 395
Dewanchand Ramsaran Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 645/47 754 233
ITR 687/179 TTJ 557 (Mum.)(Trib.) 755 233
759 234
Dhanashekar Muniswamy v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 366 (Bang.)(Trib.) 2018 666
Dhanlaxmi Equipment Pvt. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (Jaipur)(Trib.); www.itatonline. 1189 367
org
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 130 DTR 241/175 TTJ 217 1885 619
(Delhi)(Trib.)
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 130 DTR 241/175 TTJ 663 1648 535
(Delhi)(Trib.) 1864 611
Dharampal Satyapal; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 527/283 CTR 37/237 Taxman 1038 319
452/130 DTR 145 (Delhi) (HC)
Dharamshibhai Sonani v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 627/181 TTJ 721 (SMC) 1052 323
(Ahd.)(Trib.)
Dharamshibhai Sonani v. DCIT (2016) 142 DTR 62 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1058 325
Dharma Productions P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 45 ITR 102 (Mum.)(Trib.) 779 238
780 238
Dharmaj Kelvani Mandal v. CCIT (2016) 161 ITD 841 (Ahd)(Trib.) 2205 742
225 80
Dharmidevi Kanaiyalal Suthar v. ITO (2016) 51 ITR 55 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1054 324
Dhasawala Traders v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 142 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 2089 694
DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 60 (Mum.)(Trib.) 232 83
Diamond Investment and Properties v. ITO (2016) 389 ITR 289 (2017) 292 2281 768
CTR 252/147 DTR 59/247 Taxman 225 (SC)
Dignity Innovations v. ITO (2016) 49 ITR 4 (Chennai)(Trib.) 182 61
Dilip Battu Karanjule v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 172 (Pune)(Trib.) 449 150
Dilip Loyalka v. ACIT (2016) 130 DTR 73/175 TTJ 334 (Kol.)(Trib.) 422 142
1351 423
Dilip Manhar Parekh v. DCIT (2016) 136 DTR 113/178 TTJ 513 (Mum.) 1102 338
(Trib.)

xxxii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 52 ITR 155/(2017) 2242 755
183 TTJ 673 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Dinamalar v. ITO (2016) 389 ITR 94/242 Taxman 437 (Mad.)(HC) 489 161
Dinesh D. Ranka; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 440/(2015) 280 CTR 224 (Karn.) 64 20
(HC)
Dinesh D. Rankha v. CIT (2016) 239 Taxman 262 (SC) 961 290
Dipesh Lalchand Shah v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 515/179 TTJ 654/138 DTR 35 10
155 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
Discovery Communications India v. Dy. CIT (2016) 130 DTR 137/175 TTJ 1497 474
271 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Dish TV India Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 1096/177 TTJ 752 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2049 677
2078 690
Dish TV India Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 1096/177 TTJ 752/134 DTR 2021 667
81 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Divine Infracon (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 131 DTR 395 (Delhi)(HC) 2240 755
Dix Francis v. ITSC (2016) 289 CTR 404/(2017) 391 ITR 401/244 Taxman 2160 722
126 (Mad.)(HC)
DLF Hilton Hotels; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 495 (Delhi)(HC) 80 25
668 207
DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 1075/181 TTJ 58 1364 429
(Delhi)(Trib.)
Dnyaneshwar Govind Kalbhor (HUF) v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 243/(2017) 1842 605
183 TTJ 203/(2017) 151 DTR 21 (Pune)(Trib.)
Dnyaneshwar Govind Kalbhor (HUF) v. ACIT (2017) 161 ITD 243/183 TTJ 1850 607
203 (Pune)(Trib.)
Dolarri Hemani v. ITO (Kol.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 982 299
Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction Co.; DIT(IT.) v. * (2016) 388 1763 572
ITR 557/243 Taxman 421 (Bom.)(HC)
Dow Agro Sciences Agricultural Products Ltd., In re (2016) 380 ITR 13 4
668/131 DTR 177/65 taxmann.com 245/284 CTR 50 (AAR)
DPIL Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 539/241 Taxman 66 (Cal.)(HC) 569 182
Dr. Ajit Gupta v. ACIT (2016) 383 ITR 361 (Delhi)(HC) 1829 598
Dr. Gautam Sen v. CCIT (2016) 289 CTR 478 /142 DTR 220/ 74 taxmann. 1962 645
com 128. (Bom.)(HC)
Dr. Gautam Sen v. CCIT v. (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org 1965 646
Dr. Pravan Prakash v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 458 (Patna)(HC) 1959 644

xxxiii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd., In re (2016) 387 ITR 337/243 Taxman 127/289 197 69
DTR 24 (AAR)
Dr. Sarita Milind Davare v. ACIT (2017) 184 TTJ 184 TTJ 9 (UO)(Mum.) 2439 829
(Trib.)
Dr. Vasant J. Rath Trust; ITO v. * (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1008 309
DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 176 TTJ 322 538 173
(Chd.)(Trib.) 774 237
DSP Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2236 753
Dudani Metal Agencies; ITO v. * (2016) 157 ITD 1088 (Rajkot)(Trib.) 2092 695
Duncan Industries Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 150/138 DTR 241/288 464 154
CTR 107 (Cal.)(HC) 665 206
Dundload Shikshan Sansthan & Anr. v. UOI (2015) 235 Taxman 446 (2016) 2132 710
131 DTR 382/284 CTR 175 (Raj.)(HC)
Dushyant Kumar Jain v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 428/237 Taxman 646/139 DTR 1823 596
209/288 CTR 124 (Delhi)(HC)
Dutta Automobiles (P) Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 287 CTR 684 (Cal.)(HC) 1144 354
E
E. Ummer Bava v. CIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 123 (Ker.)(HC) 1135 351
Eastern Power Distribution Company of A. P. Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 160 936 282
ITD 432 (Visakh) Trib.)
E-enable Technologies P. Ltd.; Dy.CIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 546 (Delhi)(Trib.) 705 220
706 220
Effronics Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Vizag)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 549 176
Efftronics Systems (P.) Ltd. v. (2016) 161 ITD 688 (Visakh.)(Trib.) 2027 668
Efftronics Systems (P.) Ltd. v. (2016) 161 ITD 688/52 ITR 497 846 255
(Visakha(Trib.)
E-Infochips Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 231 Taxman 838/123 DTR 199/(2016) 1739 565
380 ITR 449 (Guj.)(HC)
Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 148 DTR 81 (Guj.)(HC) 1777 577
Elegant Estates; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 49 (Mad.)(HC) 1323 413
Elegant Travels P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 179 (Delhi)(HC) 2320 781
Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 482/176 TTJ 234 1508 479
(Delhi)(Trib.) 1422 450
Elite Pharmaceuticals v. ITO (2016) 242 Taxman 345/(2017) 152 DTR 226 1745 567
(Cal.)(HC)

xxxiv
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Emaar Alloys (P) Ltd. v. DGIT (Inv) & Ors. (2015) 235 Taxman 569 (2016) 1596 515
138 DTR 54/288 CTR 413 (Jharkhand)(HC) 1601 517
Emblem Fashion Wear Exports P. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 45 ITR 358 (Mum.) 2479 840
(Trib.)
Emerald Co. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 46 ITR 619/176 TTJ 276/133 DTR 177 2369 800
(Kol.)(Trib.)
Emerald Cruises v. ITAT (2016) 238 Taxman 143 (Bom.)(HC) 2231 751
Emgeeyar Pictures (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 159 ITD 1/138 DTR 20/179 TTJ 1881 618
383 (TM) (Chennai)(Trib.)
Empire Package Pvt. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 136 DTR 342/286 CTR 457 366 126
(P&H)(HC)
Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Dy. CIT (2016) 160 ITD 611/181 1990 657
TTJ 494 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Enn Zen Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 45 ITR 382 (Chd.)(Trib.) 458 153
EON Hadapsar Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 532 (Pune) 709 221
(Trib.)
Equant Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 292 (Delhi) 1486 471
(Trib.)
Escorts Asset Management Limited; ITO v. * (2016) 49 ITR 37 (Delhi) 843 255
(Trib.) 844 255
ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S. N. C. et Compagnie v. UOI (2016) 388 ITR 1665 541
383/241 Taxman 38/290 CTR 49/142 DTR 296 (Delhi)(HC)
ESS Distribution (Mauritius) S. N. C. et Compagnie v. UOI (2016) 388 ITR 1665 541
383/241 Taxman 38/290 CTR 49/142 DTR 296 (Delhi)(HC)
Essae Teraoka Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 157 ITD 728 (Bang.)(Trib) 986 300
1843 605
Essilor India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 178 TTJ 69/135 DTR 20 (Bang.) 1526 488
(Trib.); www.itatonline.org
Euro Leder Fashions Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 208 (Chennai)(Trib.) 827 250
Executive Engineer, O and M Division, (GESCOM); CIT v. * (2016) 386 2013 665
ITR 438 (Karn.)(HC) 2039 674
F
F.C. Sondhi & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 103/178 TTJ 2268 764
237/134 DTR 186 (Asr.)(Trib.)
Facor Power Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 474/237 Taxman 613/283 CTR 92 30
141/130 DTR 281 (Delhi)(HC)

xxxv
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Fair Isaac India Software (P.) Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 51 ITR 117 (Bang.) 1417 449
(Trib.)
Famous Sand Dredging Co. v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 450/ 239 Taxman 654 203
551/139 DTR 50 (Bom.)(HC)
Farid Gulmohamed v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1064 327
Farida Holdings (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 428 (Mad.)(HC) 23 7
Farida Leather company; CIT v. * (2016) 238 Taxman 473/135 DTR 268/287 839 254
CTR 565 (Mad.)(HC)
Farrah Marker v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 1173 363
Fatheraj Singhvi v. UOI (Karn.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2131 710
FCG Software Services (India) (P) Ltd v. ITO (2016) 176 TTJ 145/66 2250 758
taxmann.com 296 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1510 480
259 92
Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India v. UOI (2016) 383 2034 672
ITR 697/134 DTR 169/287 CTR 161 (Delhi)(HC)
Federation of Hotels & Restaurants Association of India v. UOI (2016) 139 2576 890
DTR 321/288 CTR 245 (Delhi)(HC)
FFC Aromas (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 539 (Mum.)(Trib.) 548 176
Fiberfill Engineers v. ACIT (2016) 177 TTJ 556/138 DTR 57 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1932 636
Fibres & Fabrics International (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 160 ITD 102/182 TTJ 522 169
374 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1631 529
Fibres and Fabrics International P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 48 ITR 46 (Bang.) 1835 603
(Trib.)
Fiduciary Share & Stock P. Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1250 389
Fiduciary Shares & Stock (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 554/181 TTJ 379 130
750 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2044 676
1247 387
Fiesta Properties (P.) Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 160 ITD 426/(2017) 53 ITR 614 913 275
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Film Logic India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 769 (Mum.)(Trib.) 451 151
Fino Fintech Foundation; ITO v. * (2016) 159 ITD 743 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2046 676
First Data (India) (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 260/237 Taxman 543 2436 828
(Bom.)(HC)
Food World Supermarkets Ltd. v. Dy. DIT (2015) 174 TTJ 859/(2016) 129 191 66
DTR 137 (Bang.)(Trib.)

xxxvi
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Foods and Inns Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 1007 (Mum.)(Trib.) 467 155
711 221
848 256
Fortis Healthcare Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 746 (Chd.)(Trib.) 2045 676
Fortune Infotech Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 1244/176 TTJ 619/47 ITR 1509 480
113/131 DTR 321 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1511 481
Fortune Infotech Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 1244/47 ITR 113/176 TTJ 1455 460
619/131 DTR 321 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
Fortune Technocomps (P) Ltd.; Pr. CIT v. * (Delhi)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2435 827
Fosroc Chemicals India (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 731/290 CTR 1382 435
221/143 DTR 153 (Karn.)(HC)
Foster Wheeler France SA v. DDIT(IT) (2016) 157 ITD 793/176 TTJ 521/137 192 67
DTR 265 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Foster Wheeler France SA v. Dy. DIT (2016) 178 TTJ 354 (Chennai)(Trib.) 187 63
Foster Wheeler G. B. Ltd., In re (2016) 389 ITR 509/290 CTR 1 (2017) 77 799 242
taxmann.com 205/142 DTR 345 (AAR)
Foundation for Indo-German Studies v. DIT (2016) 161 ITD 226 (Hyd.) 332 115
(Trib.)
Foxconn India Developer (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 288 CTR 173/239 Taxman 2031 670
513 (Mad.)(HC)
Foxconn India Developer (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 239 Taxman 513/288 CTR 2032 670
173/135 DTR 185 (Mad.)(HC)
Franchise India Holdings Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 388 ITR 563/293 CTR 474 1764 573
(P&H)(HC)
Fritidsresor Tours & Travels India (P.) Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 1485 471
495/139 DTR 336/180 TTJ 65 (Delhi) (Trib.) 1484 471
Fritz D. Silva; DCIT v. * (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1028 315
Fugro Rovtech Ltd. v. ACIT (IT) (2016) 157 ITD 250/175 TTJ 41 (UO) 954 287
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Furniture Concepts (I) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 156 ITD 233 (Mum.)(Trib.) 871 263
1632 529
Future Distributors v. PCIT (2016) 160 ITD 574/181 TTJ 1/50 ITR 515 2360 797
(Kol.)(Trib.)
Future Gaming & Hotel Services (P) Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 282 CTR 225/129 2577 890
DTR 275 (Sikkim)(HC)

xxxvii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
G
G. M. Finance & Trading Co.; ACIT v. * (2016) 135 DTR 57/176 TTJ 638 2443 830
(Mum.)(Trib.) 2475 839
G. Ramesh v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 633 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1096 336
G. S. Homes & Hotels P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 141 DTR 201/289 CTR 106 (SC) 436 146
G. S. Homes & Hotels P. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2016) 141 DTR 201/289 CTR 105 68 21
(SC)
G. S. Homes and Hotels P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 78 (SC) 433 145
G. D. Birla Medical Research & Educational Foundation; DIT v. * (2016) 484 159
243 Taxman 209 (Bom.)(HC)
G.R.T. Jewellers (India) Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (Mad.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 1300 405
G.S. Homes and Hotels P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 126/242 Taxman 960 289
58/289 CTR 105/141 DTR 201 (SC) 434 146
Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune)(Trib.) 2133 711
Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT (Pune)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 2135 711
2180 733
Galatea Ltd. v. DCIT (IT) (2016) 157 ITD 938/46 ITR 690/179 TTJ 265/138 170 56
DTR 161 (Mum.)(Trib.) 172 57
Ganapathy & Co. v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 363/237 Taxman 587/283 CTR 2276 766
121/130 DTR 233 (SC)
Ganarya Land (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 139 DTR 43/288 CTR 50 (Bom.)(HC) 2285 769
Ganesh Metal Industries. v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 828 (Amritsar)(Trib.) 1633 529
Ganpat University v. Arvind Shankar (2016) 242 Taxman 496/(2017) 293 215 77
CTR 113/147 DTR 335 (Guj.)(HC)
Garden Silk Mills Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 237 (Guj.)(HC) 1678 545
Garment Exporters Association of Rajasthan; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 330 114
20/138 DTR 214/289 CTR 652 (Raj.)(HC)
Gauri Shankar & Ors. v. DIT (2016) 289 CTR 203 (Delhi)(HC) 1600 516
Gauri Shankar; DIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 545/137 DTR 84 (Delhi)(HC) 1602 517
Gayatri Chakraborty (Smt.); ITO v. * (2016) 45 ITR 197 (Kol.)(Trib.) 43 13
GE Capital Business Process Management Services (P) Ltd. (2016) 532 171
Chamber’s Journal- January–P. 95 (Delhi)(Trib.)
GE Capital Business Process Management Services (P) Ltd. (2016) 795 241
Chamber’s Journal-January–P. 95 (Delhi)(Trib.)
GE Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www. 1480 469
itatonline.org

xxxviii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Gebbs Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 551 (Mum.) 36 11
(Trib.) 1566 501
Geeta Mishra (Smt.) v. DCIT (2016) 47 ITR 50 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 2462 835
Geeta Mishra (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2016) 178 TTJ 373/135 DTR 161 (Jaipur) 2455 833
(Trib.)
Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council; DIT(E) v. * (2016) 384 ITR 276 99
412 (Bom.)(HC)
Gemorium v. ITO (Trib.)(Jaipur); www.itatonline.org 2491 844
Gemstone Glass (P.) Ltd v. JCIT (2015) 174 TTJ 800/128 DTR 108/(2016) 1496 474
156 ITD 176 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1495 474
General Atlantic (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 271/238 Taxman 535/136 1388 437
DTR 413/287 CTR 97 (Bom.)(HC)
General Electoral Trust v. ITO (2016) 141 DTR 294/289 CTR 284 (Bom.) 1796 585
(HC) 1748 568
Genius Printers P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 48 ITR 588 (Mum.)(Trib.) 510 166
1161 360
Genus Electrotech Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 242 Taxman 336/(2017) 152 DTR 93 1583 511
(Guj.)(HC)
Genus Electrotech Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 644 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 100 32
1546 496
Gera Developments (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 160 ITD 439/181 TTJ 510/52 2057 680
ITR 1 (Pune)(Trib.)
Gera Developments (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 691/240 Taxman 467 2338 788
(Bom.)(HC)
Gera Developments P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 52 ITR 1/160 ITD 439/181 842 254
TTJ 510 (Pune)(Trib.)
Gerard Perira v. ITO (2016) 389 ITR 547 (Mad.)(HC) 1275 396
Getrag Hi Tech Gears Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 545/69 taxmann. 1671 543
com 35 (Chd.)(Trib.)
Getrag Hi Tech Gears Pvt. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 47 ITR 545/69 taxmann. 1670 542
com 35 (Chd.) (Trib.)
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. CIT (2016) 161 ITD 637 (Delhi)(Trib.) 339 117
Gideons International in India; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 666 (Hyd.) 351 122
(Trib.)
Gillco Developers & Builders (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 175 TTJ 81 (UO) 783 239
(Chd.)(Trib.) 1210 374

xxxix
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Gillette India Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 70 SOT 289/(2016) 175 TTJ 35 (UO) 787 239
(Jaipur)(Trib.) 876 264
1209 374
1520 484
Gimpex Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 48 ITR 347 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1530 490
Giridhar G. Yadalam v. CWT (2016) 384 ITR 52/237 Taxman 392/284 CTR 2534 865
433/132 DTR 289 (SC)
Girilal and Company v. ITO (2016) 387 ITR 122/243 Taxman 233/290 CTR 1715 556
487/144 DTR 105 (SC)
Girish Bansal v. UOI (2016) 384 ITR 161 (Delhi)(HC) 88 29
2318 780
Girish Bansal, Gynendra Bansal v. UOI (2016) 142 DTR 138/289 CTR 514 202 71
(Delhi)(HC)
Girish L. Ragha; CIT v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 449/140 DTR 418/289 CTR 1070 329
213 (Bom.)(HC)
Girish M. Kothari v. JCIT (2016) 157 ITD 451 (Mum.)(Trib.) 111 35
867 262
Girraj Mehta v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 385/133 DTR 182/285 CTR 205 (Raj.) 2432 826
(HC)
GlaxoSmithkline Consumer Health Care Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 290 672 208
(P&H)(HC)
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 175 TTJ 552/143 399 136
DTR 57 (Chd.)(Trib.)
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2016) 175 TTJ 782 239
552/143 DTR 57 (Chd.)(Trib.)
Global Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd.; Pr.CIT v. * (Delhi)(HC); www.itatonline. 1399 442
org
Global Mercantiles (P.) Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 924 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1174 364
1223 379
Global Realty & Ors. v. CIT (2016) 134 DTR 334/286 CTR 216 (MP)(HC) 2310 777
Goa PWD Staff Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 1335 418
422 (Bom.)(HC)
Gokul Ceramics & Ors.; PCIT v. * (2016) 141 DTR 45/289 CTR 126/241 1744 567
Taxman 1 (Guj.)(HC) 1395 439
Gold Star Jewellery Design (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 510/238 1391 438
Taxman 5/138 DTR 313/288 CTR 28 (Bom.)(HC)
Golden Tobacco Limited v. DCI (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1876 615

xl
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Goldman Sachs (India) Securities (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 1383 436
736/290 CTR 236/143 DTR 158 (Bom.)(HC)
Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www. 46 13
itatonline.org
Golkonda Aluminium Extrusion Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 273 1439 454
Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 108/131 DTR 57/284 2316 780
CTR 266 (Bom.)(HC)
Goodview Trading P. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 47 ITR 555 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1931 636
Goodwill Theatres Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 294/241 Taxman 352 84 27
(Bom.)(HC)
Goodwill Theatres Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 294/241 Taxman 2304 775
352/144 DTR 221 (Bom.)(HC)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.; DIT(IT) v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 389 (SC) 2176 730
Gopal S. Rajput; ITO v. * (2016) 156 ITD 827 (Mum)(Trib.) 868 262
Gopi Ram Goyal Charitable Trust; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 749/(2017) 308 107
392 ITR 285 (Raj.)(HC) 312 108
Gordhan Das Gilara v. ACIT (2016) 130 DTR 67/175 TTJ 627 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 2472 838
Grama Vidiyal Trust; ACIT v. * (2016) 180 TTJ 579/71 taxman.com 88 282 100
(Chennai)(Trib.)
Grass Field Farms and Resorts P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 388 ITR 395/141 DTR 2419 821
205/289 CTR 312/(2017) 79 taxmann.com 426 (Raj.)(HC)
Green Acres Educational Trust v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 671/182 TTJ 315 108
537/49 ITR 533 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Green Meadows Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2267 763
Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2017) 245 Taxman 125 1043 321
(Bom.)(HC)
Greenfield Hotels and Estates P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 68/(2017) 77 1041 320
taxmann.com 308 (Bom.)(HC) 2288 770
Gregory Mathias; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 25 (Karn.)(HC) 1089 334
Group M. Media India (P) Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 142 DTR 267/289 CTR 622 1638 531
(2017) 77 taxmann.com 106 (Bom.)(HC)
Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd v. UOI (2016) 388 ITR 594 (Bom.)(HC) 1639 532
Gruh Finance Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 160 ITD 89 (Ahd)(Trib.) 612 193
556 178
613 193
614 194
Gruh Finance Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 444 (Guj.)(HC) 437 147

xli
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Gruner India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 772/179 TTJ 1 (Delhi) 1431 453
(Trib.) 1432 453
1433 453
GSB Capital Markets Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 770 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1255 390
GTC Industries Ltd.; DGIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 209/286 CTR 355/135 2116 705
DTR 337 (SC)
Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 125 (Guj.) 1986 656
(HC)
Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 46 ITR 519 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 2019 666
2091 695
Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 519 (Ahd.)(Trib) 2090 694
Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 2527 860
573 (Guj.)(HC)
Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 484/243 2526 860
Taxman 56/144 DTR 337/(2017) 291 CTR 17 (SC)(HC)
Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2016) 158 ITD 687/180 TTJ 354/140 2059 681
DTR 1(Mum)(Trib.)
Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 236/136 564 181
DTR 138/287 CTR 83 (Bom.)(HC) 802 243
Gujarat Safai Kamdar Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 900 234 84
(Ahd.)(Trib.)
Gujarat State Board of School Textbooks v. ACIT (2016) 243 Taxman 311 1760 571
(Guj.)(HC)
Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 1552 498
357 (Guj.)(HC)
Gulbarga Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 622/69 2040 674
taxmann.com 252 (Karn.)(HC)
Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 484/76 2038 673
taxmann. com 244/ 142 DTR 97 (Karn.)(HC)
Gulf Energy Maritime Services (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 178 TTJ 683/136 DTR 1452 458
130 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Gurbinder Singh v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 256 (Chennai)(Trib.) 32 10
Gurdev Agro Engineers v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 218 (P&H)(HC) 1624 526
Gurinder Singh Bawa; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 483 (Bom)(HC) 1896 623
Gurpal Singh v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 797 (Amritsar)(Trib.) 1621 524
1846 606
Gurpreet Kaur v. ITO (Asr.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1660 540

xlii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Guru Angad Dev Veterinary Agricultural Science Universtity v. CIT (2016) 2011 665
387 ITR 670 (P&H)(HC)
Guru Dashmesh Rice and General Mills v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 97 (P&H) 1044 321
(HC)
Gurudaspur Improvement Trust v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 741 (P&H)(HC) 2220 747
GVK Jaipur-Kishangarh Expressway (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2014) 166 TTJ 702 219
11 (UO)/(2015) 68 SOT 205 (Jaipur)(Trib.)
GVK Oil & Gas Ltd. v. ADIT (IT) (2016) 158 ITD 215 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 165 54
Gynendra Bansal v. UOI (2016) 384 ITR 161 (Delhi)(HC) 88 29
973 295
2308 777
2318 780
H
H. Gouthamchand Jain v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 526 (Chennai)(Trib.) 2262 762
H. Gouthamchand Jain v. ITO (2016) 388 ITR 148/243 Taxman 198 (Mad.) 1623 525
(HC)
H. K. Pujara Builders v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2246 757
H. R. Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 138 DTR 217 (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 1148 355
H. R. Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561/72 taxmann.com 110 (Bom.)(HC) 1769 574
Haji Ramzan & Sons v. CIT (2016) 242 Taxman 380 (All.)(HC) 2099 697
Halliburton Export Inc; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 123 (Delhi)(HC) 163 53
Halliburton Technology India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 178 TTJ 12 (UO) 1450 458
(Pune)(Trib.)
Harayana Television Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 247 (P&H)(HC) 428 144
Harbans Singh v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 600/237 Taxman 596 (P&H)(HC) 203 72
Hari Om Gupta; ITO v. * (2016) 45 ITR 137 (Lucknow)(Trib.) 1059 325
1066 328
Harihar Housing Agency v. CIT (2016) 177 TTJ 242/134 DTR 107 (Nag.) 2371 801
(Trib.)
Harjeev Aggarwal; CIT v. * (2016) 241 Taxman 199/133 DTR 122 (Delhi) 1605 518
(HC)
Harsh Kochar, Bahrat Ice Factory; CIT v. * (2016) 287 CTR 63/69 taxmann. 1964 646
com 322/136 DTR 393/(2017) 390 ITR 385 (Patna)(HC)
Harsha N. Biliangady (Dr.); CIT v. * (2015) 379 ITR 529/(2016) 133 DTR 2433 826
223 (Karn.)(HC)
Harvinder Singh Jaggiv. ACIT (2016)157 ITD 869/179 TTJ 232 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1594 514

xliii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 488 (P&H) 1792 584
(HC)
Haryana State Co-op. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 2253 759
389 ITR 266 (P&H)(HC)
Haryana State Counseling Society; ITO v. * (2016) 159 ITD 816/179 TTJ 856 258
660 (Chd.)(Trib.)
Haryana State Road & Bridge Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (P&H) 667 207
(HC); www.itatonline.org
Haryana State Road and Bridges Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 634 199
(2016) 388 ITR 253/243 Taxman 187 (P&H)(HC)
Haryana State Road and Bridges Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 2215 745
(2016) 388 ITR 253/ 243 Taxman 187 (P&H)(HC)
Hassan Ali Khan v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 529/180 TTJ 209 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1217 378
1224 380
1235 383
Hatkesh Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 234 Taxman 213 2225 748
(Bom.)(HC)
Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. CIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 110 35
Haworth (India) (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 241 Taxman 100 (Bom.)(HC) 1374 432
Hazariram and Ors v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 194 (Raj.)(HC) 1662 540
2547 870
HCL Infosystems Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 35/136 DTR 194 (Delhi) 970 293
(HC)
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2015) 155 ITD 765/173 TTJ 810/(2016) 45 ITR 748 230
529/130 DTR 219 (Mum.)(Trib.)
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529/132 DTR 89/284 CTR 414 367 127
(Bom.)(HC) 2237 753
Headstrong Services India (P) Ltd v. DCIT (2016) 158 ITD 717/176 TTJ 1512 481
665/135 DTR 73 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1513 482
1514 483
1516 484
260 93
Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 158 ITD 717/176 TTJ 665/135 1525 487
DTR 73 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 46 387 132
ITR 172 (Chennai) (Trib) 251 90
252 90
Hem Raj v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 589 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1694 550

xliv
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Hemal Dilipbhai Shah v. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 91 (Guj.)(HC) 1612 521
Hemal Raju Shete (Mrs.); CIT v. * (2016) 136 DTR 417/239 Taxman 176 979 298
(Bom.)(HC)
Hemant Rajnikant Shroff v. Addl. CIT (2016) 47 ITR 388/179 TTJ 365 2504 848
(Ahd.)(Trib.) 2514 852
Hemdha Medi Resources (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 627 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 1261 392
Hemkunt Timbers Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 658/130 DTR 101/283 1805 589
CTR 1 (All.)(HC)
Hemkunt Timbers Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 658/283 CTR 1/67 1741 565
taxmann.com 231 (All.)(HC) 1880 617
Hemraj Mahabir Prasad Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 170/237 taxman 414 140
379/286 CTR 112/134 DTR 192 (SC) 2398 811
Heramec Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 238 Taxman 519 (AP&T)(HC) 2042 675
Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 276/136 803 244
DTR 33/286 DTR 372/240 Taxman 21 (Delhi)(HC)
Hercules Hoists Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 698 (Bom.)(HC) 1291 402
2301 774
Heritage Hospitality Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 179 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 454 152
Hero Cycles Ltd. (No 2); CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 28/(2017) 393 ITR 629 198
164/293 CTR 23/147 DTR 265 (P&H)(HC) 1332 417
Hertz Chemicals Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 39/239 Taxman 431 (Bom.) 1246 386
(HC)
Hewitt Associates (India) P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 49 ITR 53 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2448 831
Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 99/283 CTR 247 89
410/66 taxmann.com 152/130 DTR 362 (Karn.)(HC)
Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2015) 127 DTR 281/(2016) 380 1830 599
ITR 386 (Karn.)(HC)
Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 496 (Karn.) 2350 794
(HC)
Hightension Switchgears P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 575/240 Taxman 836 253
582/290 CTR 97/143 DTR 228 (Cal.)(HC)
HiKlass Moving Picture Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1925 633
Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education Act v. DCIT (2016) 176 TTJ 229 82
580/138 DTR 105 (Chd.)(Trib.)
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Addl. CIT (TDS) (2016) 46 ITR 2497 846
113/177 TTJ 18 (UO)(Chd.)(Trib.)
Himanshu B. Kanakia; DCIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 756 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1909 628

xlv
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Himatsingka Seide Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 463/240 Taxman 753 578 185
(Karn.)(HC)
HimatsingkaSeide Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 463/240 Taxman 753 360 125
(Karn.)(HC)
Hindalco Industries Co. v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 430 (All.)(HC) 565 181
Hinduja Foundries Ltd. ACIT (2016) 178 TTJ 88/(2017) 148 DTR 158 741 228
(Chennai)(Trib.)
Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 178 TTJ 88 (Chennai)(Trib.) 523 169
Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 178 TTJ 88 (Chennai)(Trib.) 524 169
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 387 ITR 471/73 2493 845
taxmann.com 71/140 DTR 73 (Delhi)(HC)
Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 241 Taxman 401/(2017) 265 95
152 DTR 84 (Cal.)(HC)
Hindustan Latex Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 407/76 Taxamnn.com 332 1719 557
(Ker.)(HC)
Hindustan M-I Swaco Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 241 Taxman 239 (Guj.)(HC) 1585 512
Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 48 ITR 646 646 (Mum.) 2440 829
(Trib.)
Hindustan Zinc Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 143 DTR 79/241 Taxman 392/290 1718 557
CTR 322 (2017) 393 ITR 264 (Raj.)(HC)
Hirachand Kanuga v. DY. CIT (2015) 68 SOT 205 (URO)(Mum.)(Trib.) 1840 605
Hiralal Chunilal Jain v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1237 383
Hiralal Doshi; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 19 (Bom.)(HC) 2438 829
Hiranandani Foundation v. ADIT (E) (2016) 159 ITD 278/181 TTJ 471 287 101
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Hissaria Brothers; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 719/243 Taxman 174/140 DTR 2512 851
18/288 CTR 244 (SC)
Hitender Pal Singh v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1188 367
Holcim Services South Asia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 892 (Mum.) 823 249
(Trib.)
Honda Cars India Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 181 TTJ 36/161 ITD 655 (Delhi) 713 222
(Trib.) 816 247
Honda Cars India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 88/285 CTR 39/133 DTR 1668 542
48/240 Taxman 707 (Delhi)(HC)
Honda Motor India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 176 TTJ 282/66 taxmann.com 1500 476
9/137 DTR 254 (Delhi)(Trib.)

xlvi
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 304/283 1529 489
CTR 322/130 DTR 241 (Delhi)(HC)
Honey Enterprises v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 258/236 Taxman 519/132 DTR 691 215
36/289 CTR 262 (Delhi)(HC)
Honey Enterprises v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 258/236 Taxman 519/289 CTR 895 270
262 (Delhi)(HC)
Hosdurg Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham 1344 421
v. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 34 (Ker.)(HC)
Hosmat Hospital (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 160 ITD 513 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1992 658
2047 676
Hotel Steelwell (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 161 ITD 767 (Delhi)(Trib.) 698 218
2449 831
Housing and Urban Development Corpn Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 2299 773
212/140 DTR 108 (Delhi)(HC) 2528 860
Hubli Electric Supply Co. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 271/237 Taxman 2043 675
7/136 DTR 105/ 287 CTR 443 (Karn.)(HC)
Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT (2016) 290 CTR 511/144 DTR 169 2118 705
(2017) 244 Taxman 230 (Bom.)(HC)
Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT (2016) 387 ITR 421/242 Taxman 2548 870
189/140 DTR 209/290 CTR 496 (Bom.)(HC) 2555 872
1091 334
Huseina Dawoodi (Dr.) v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 735 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1233 382
HVK International P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 630/72 Taxmann.com 1723 559
208 (Guj.)(HC)
Hyderabad Bottling Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 154 ITD 470/174 TTJ 898/130 2536 866
DTR 10 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Hyosung Corporation v. AAR (2016) 382 ITR 371/284 CTR 121/131 DTR 2177 731
369/238 Taxman 401 (Delhi)(HC)
Hyosung Corporation v. AAR (2016) 385 ITR 95/138 DTR 337/288 CTR 2174 729
19 (Delhi)(HC)
Hyundai Rotem Company v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1460 462
I
I. Ifthiqar Ashiq; CIT v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 443 (Mad.)(HC) 1090 334
I.F.G.L. Refractories Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 45 ITR 1 (Kol.)(Trib.) 776 237
Ian Peter Morris v. ACIT (2016) 389 ITR 501/(2017) 244 Taxman 219/145 2121 707
DTR 13/291 CTR 15 (SC)
IBAHN India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 382 (Mum.)(Trib.) 533 171

xlvii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
IBC Knowledge Park P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 346/287 CTR 261/69 577 184
taxmann.com 108/136 DTR 65 (Karn.)(HC) 1919 632
496 162
ICI India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 175 TTJ 217 (Kol.)(Trib.) 784 239
785 239
786 239
1005 308
1948 641
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Aburubam & Company (2016) 243 Taxman 72 (SC) 2115 704
ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 159 945 284
(Bom.)(HC)
IDBI Ltd.; CIT v. * (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 1788 582
Idea Cellur Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 76 taxmann.com 77 (Bom.)(HC) 620 195
Ideal Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1914 630
IDS Infotech Ltd. v. DY. CIT (2016) 181 TTJ 217 (Chd.)(Trib.) 806 244
IHI Corporation v. ADIT(IT) (2016) 156 ITD 677 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1355 425
IHP Finvest Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 64 (Bom.)(HC) 980 298
IILM Foundation Academy; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 148/243 Taxman 285 329 113
(P&H)(HC)
Ikea Trading (India) P. Ltd.; DCIT v. * (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 765 235
Imerys Asia Pacific (P) Ltd. v. DDIT (IT) (2016) 140 DTR 177/180 TTJ 544 1536 492
(Pune)(Trib.)
Imperial Imp & Exp. v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1211 375
Improvement Trust Bathinda v. CIT (2015) 70 SOT 345 (Amritsar)(Trib.) 334 116
Improvement Trust Moga; CIT v. * (2016) 76 taxmann.com 363/ (2017) 390 14 4
ITR 547/291 CTR 352/145 DTR 350 (P&H)(HC)
Incable Net (Andhra) Ltd v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 356 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 858 259
Income-tax Settlement Commission; PCIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 456/240 2165 724
Taxman 137/289 CTR 493 (Bom.)(HC)
Ind Sing Developers (P.) Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 350/288 CTR 972 294
154/139 DTR 237 (Karn.)(HC)
Indegene Life Systems (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 70 SOT 279 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1412 447
Inder Singla v. ITO (2016) 181 TTJ 368/141 DTR 137 (Chd.)(Trib.) 983 300
Inderchand D. Kochar v. ACIT (2016) 388 ITR 500/73 taxmann.com 96/ 2199 740
(2017) 145 DTR 223/291 CTR 572 (Mad.)(HC)
Inderjeet Singh Sachdeva v. DCIT (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 1862 610

xlviii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
India Advantage Securities Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 471 (Bom.)(HC) 370 128
India Capital Markets P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 510 (Bom.)(HC) 833 252
India Cements Educational Society; DDIT (E) v. * (2016) 157 ITD 1008/46 349 121
ITR 80 (Chennai)(Trib.)
India Cements Educational Society; Dy. DIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 1008/46 1535 491
ITR 80 (Chennai)(Trib.)
India Jute & Industries Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 912 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1943 640
India Bulls Financial Service Ltd. v. DCIT (Delhi) (HC); www.itatonline.org 358 124
Indian Aluminum Co. v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 386/135 DTR 305/239 Taxman 683 212
51/(2017) 291 CTR 196 (Cal.)(HC)
Indian Finance Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 242 (Cal.)(HC) 2326 784
Indian Furniture Products Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 148 (Panaji)(Trib.) 1562 500
Indian Leather Products Association; ITO v. * (2016) 156 ITD 393 (Kol.) 301 105
(Trib.)
Indian Medical Association v. Addl. DIT(E) (2016) 49 ITR 7 (Delhi)(Trib.) 333 116
Indian National Congress (I); CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 99/239 Taxman 352 122
72/285 CTR 97/134 DTR 1 (Delhi)(HC)
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 161 ITD 131/(2017) 183 TTJ 2017 666
624/147 DTR 77 (Kol.)(Trib.)
Indigra Exports (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 176 TTJ 384/64 taxmann.com 1501 476
370/135 DTR 225 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1502 476
1503 477
Indo American Hybrid Seeds India P. Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 52 ITR 201 2203 741
(Bang.)(Trib.)
Indo American Hybrid Seeds India P. Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 52 ITR 201/ 1645 534
(2017) 147 DTR 265/183 TTJ 474 (Bang.)(Trib.)
Indo Arab Air Services; CIT v. * (2015) 64 taxmann.com 257/(2016) 130 1806 589
DTR 78/283 CTR 92 (Delhi)(HC)
Indogem v. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 405 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1034 317
Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd v. Addl. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 665/241 1363 428
Taxman 523/290 CTR 176/143 DTR 55 (Delhi)(HC)
Indra Sen Aggarwal; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 592/138 DTR 76 (P&H)(HC) 2230 750
Indravadan Jain; ITO v. * (HUF) (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 1172 363
Indu Lalta Rangwala v. DCIT (2016) 384 ITR 337/136 DTR 289/286 CTR 1822 596
474 (Delhi)(HC)
Indu Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (Delhi)(HC); www. 1901 625
itatonline.org

xlix
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Indus Finance Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 63 taxmann.com 244/(2016) 1937 638
380 ITR 504/136 DTR 118 (Mad.)(HC)
Indus Motor Co. (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 134 DTR 94 (Ker.)(HC) 676 210
Indus Motor Company (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 282 CTR 540 (Ker.)(HC) 673 209
Indus Motors Co. P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 503/134 DTR 73/285 677 210
CTR 209 (FB) (Ker.)(HC)
Industrial Feeders v. ACIT (2016) 240 Taxman 506 (Mad.)(HC) 571 182
Infinera India Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 157 ITD 637 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1410 447
INFOR Global Solutions (Barneveld) BV v. DDIT (IT) (2016) 49 ITR 73 166 55
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Information Systems Audit and Control Association v. DDIT (E) (2016) 157 20 7
ITD 815/46 ITR 665/179 TTJ 99 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Information Systems Audit and Control Association v. DDIT (E) (2016) 157 294 103
ITD 815/46 ITR 665/179 TTJ 99 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Infrastructure Development Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 238 Taxman 233 84
212 (Mad.)(HC) 611 193
Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 239 493 161
Taxman 464 (Bom.)(HC) 573 183
656 204
Inox Leisure Ltd.; Dy.CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 626 (Guj.)(HC) 81 25
Instant Holdings Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 49 ITR 32 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1657 538
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India; Dy. DIT v. * (2016) 159 ITD 318 109
573 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd. v. ADIT (2016) 160 ITD 1/179 TTJ 1447 457
665/138 DTR 225/49 ITR 489 (SB) (Kol.)(Trib.)
Intergarden India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bag.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 273 98
1527 488
International Air Transport Association v. ADIT (2016) 140 DTR 225/179 2183 734
TTJ 254 (Mum.)(Trib.)
International Air Transport Association v. DCIT (2016) 142 DTR 293/241 1667 542
Taxman 249/290 CTR 46 (Bom.)(HC)
International Institute of Neuro Sciences & Oncology Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 1225 380
243 Taxman 364 (P&H)(HC)
International management Group (UK) Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.), www. 186 63
itatonline.org
International Management Group (UK) Ltd. v. ACIT (IT) 2016) 51 ITR 180 61
372/182 TTJ 1 /(2017) 162 ITD 219/(Delhi)(Trib.)

l
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
International Technical Services LLC; ADIT v. * (2016) 159 ITD 958 (Delhi) 951 286
(Trib.)
Interpump Hydraulics India P. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 50 ITR 43 (Chennai) 1429 452
(Trib.)
Interroute Communication Ltd. v. DDIT(IT) (2016) 179 TTJ 355/139 DTR 168 56
175/68 taxmann.com 160 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Intertoll ICS india Private Limited; ITO v. * (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline. 1477 467
org
Inventurus Knowledge Services (P.) Ltd v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 727/45 ITR 922 278
57/177 TTJ 269/143 DTR 113 (Mum.)(Trib). 794 241
471 156
IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. Rajaram, DCIT (2016) 140 DTR 89 (Bom.)(HC) 1934 637
ISC Investments & Finance (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 218/ 462 154
(2017) 393 ITR 195 (Mad.)(HC)
Ishwar Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 883 (Chd.) 1311 409
(Trib.)
ITC Limited v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 14/286 CTR 126/134 DTR 273/239 406 137
Taxman 372 (SC)
ITC Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 612/286 CTR 400 (Cal.)(HC) 1301 406
466 155
498 163
924 279
ITC Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 487 (Cal.)(HC) 1277 397
ITC Ltd.; CIT v.* (2016) 237 Taxman 533/134 DTR 293 (Cal.)(HC) 502 164
ITC, Infotech India Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 380/237 Taxman 476 1403 444
(Cal.)(HC)
ITSC; CIT v. * (2016) 241 Taxman 371/290 CTR 635/(2017) 390 ITR 306 2158 721
(Guj.)(HC) 2162 723
ITW India Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 290 (P&H)(HC) 2298 773
Iveco Spa v. ADIT (IT (2016) 160 ITD 348/182 TTJ 464/(2017) 147 DTR 167 55
353 (Delhi)(Trib.)
IVRCL-KBL(JV) v. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 564/239 Taxman 152/133 DTR 2067 684
234/289 CTR 111 (T& AP)(HC)
Ivy Health Life Sciences P. Ltd.; CIT (TDS) v. * (2016) 380 ITR 242/236 1989 657
Taxman 292/286 CTR 313/133 DTR 169 (P&H) (HC)
J
J. B. Engg. Works; DCIT v. * (2016) 176 TTJ 699/133 DTR 63 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1003 307

li
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
J. K. Cement; DCIT v. * (2016) 45 ITR 50 (Luck)(Trib.) 1944 640
J. K. Synthetics Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) (2016) 243 Taxman 441 (All.)(HC) 1540 494
J. M. Financial Securities (P) Ltd.; CIT v * (2016) 241 Taxman 551 (Bom.) 623 196
(HC) 553 177
J. M. Financial Service Ltd. v. JCIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1248 387
J. Ray McDermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd.; Addl. DIT(IT) v. * (2016) 180 138 44
TTJ 660 (Mum.)(Trib.)
J. Ray McDermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd.; ADIT (IT) v. * (2016) 158 ITD 149 48
923/49 ITR 300/180 TTJ 660 (Mum.)(Trib.) 952 287
148 48
J. S. Grover Constructions; ACIT v. * (2016) 181 TTJ 23 (UO) (Asr.)(Trib.) 512 167
849 256
J.G.A. Shah Brokers P. Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1253 390
J.K. Cement; DCIT v. * (2016) 45 ITR 50 (Luck)(Trib.) 1549 496
J.K. Synthetics Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 411 (All.)(HC) 1542 494
J.N. Chandrashekar v. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 653 (Bang.)(Trib.) 2204 741
J.P. Morgan Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 46 ITR 561/70 taxmann.com 1456 461
228 (Mum.) (Trib.) 249 90
250 90
Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 130 DTR 17/175 1178 365
TTJ 344 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 1912 630
Jagjit Singh Jaswant Singh Oberoi; ACIT v. * (2015) 155 ITD 283/(2016) 38 11
177 TTJ 118/134 DTR 74 (Nag.)(Trib.)
Jagraon Export v. CIT (2016) 132 DTR 86/284 CTR 209/238 Taxman 88 1269 395
(SC)
Jai Chand v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 684 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1026 315
Jai Hind Cycle Company Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 482/243 Taxman 2279 767
354/144 DTR 321/(2017) 291 CTR 239 (SC)
Jai Hind Sciaky Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 25/130 DTR 177/286 CTR 2539 867
76 (Bom.)(HC)
Jai Laxmi Rice Mills; CIT v. * (2015) 379 ITR 521/(2016) 134 DTR 223/286 2503 848
CTR 159/237 Taxman 375 (SC)
Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 448/129 DTR 2522 857
63/282 CTR 435 (Delhi)(HC)
Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 228 (Raj.)(HC) 593 188
Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1911 629

lii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Jajodia Engineering (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 289 CTR 208/(2017) 79 1550 497
taxmann.com 385 (Gau.)(HC)
Jajodia Engineering P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 364/141 DTR 243 1556 499
(Gauhati)(HC)
Jalan Distributors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 243 Taxman 205 (Cal.)(HC) 566 181
Jamnagar Area Development Authority v. Principal CIT (OSD) (E) (2016) 2105 701
236 Taxman 484 (Guj.)(HC)
Janata Party; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 146/239 Taxman 194/285 CTR 353 122
194/134 DTR 49 (Delhi)(HC)
Japan International Cooperation Agency v. DDIT (2016) 158 ITD 62/139 235 84
DTR 185/180 TTJ 152 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1573 504
Jaspal Singh Sehgal v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 193 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1171 362
1203 372
Jat Education Society; CIT v. * (2015) 64 taxmann.com 312/(2016) 383 ITR 221 79
355 (P&H)(HC)
Jawahar Lal Oswal; CIT v. * (FB) (2016) 382 ITR 453/133 DTR 15/284 CTR 1214 376
188 238 Taxman 225 (P&H)(HC)
Jawaharla Agicha; ACIT v. * (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 993 303
Jawaharlal L. Agicha; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 429/(2017) 183 TTJ 176 991 302
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Jawaharlal L. Agicha; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 429/(2017) 183 TTJ 65 20
176/151 DTR 241 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 339 (Bom.)(HC) 277 99
Jaya Hind Sciaky Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 547/137 DTR 329/179 TTJ 920 277
112 (Pune)(Trib.)
Jaya Hind Sciaky Ltd.; Dy.CIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 547/137 DTR 329/179 917 276
TTJ 112 (Pune)(Trib.)
Jayanthi Shri, S. v. M. Kalpalatha Rajan, ACIT (2016) 288 CTR 354/241 1586 512
Taxman 15 /(2017) 148 DTR 355 (Mad.)(HC)
Jaybharat Textiles & Real Estate Ltd.; ACIT v. * (Mum)(Trib.) www. 1205 373
itatonline.org
Jayesh Govindbhai Balar v. ITO (2016) 240 Taxman 703 (Guj.)(HC) 1782 579
Jayeshbhai J. Shah v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 293 (Guj.)(HC) 2421 821
Jaytick Intermediates (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 242 Taxman 319 (Guj.)(HC) 1674 544
Jazzy Creations (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 176 TTJ 393/133 DTR 1 (Mum.) 1672 543
(Trib.)

liii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
JCIT v. Suttati Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2016) 159 ITD 348/181 TTJ 199 (Pune) 1360 427
(Trib.)
JCT Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 983 (Kol.)(Trib.) 515 167
Jeans Knit Private Limited v. DCIT (2017) 390 ITR 10/244 Taxman 154/145 1713 555
DTR 16/291 CTR 13 (SC)
Jet Airways (India) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 572/(2017) 292 CTR 908 274
7 (Bom.)(HC)
Jever Jewellers; CIT v. * (2015) 236 Taxman 282/(2016) 286 CTR 528/133 1603 517
DTR 159 (Jharkhand)(HC)
Jewels Magnum v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 185/181 TTJ 137 (Chennai)(Trib.) 263 95
Jiauddin Mollah v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 394 (Cal.)(HC) 835 253
Jigesh Venilal Koralwala; PCIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 177/(2017) 147 DTR 2422 822
172/294 CTR 124 (Guj.)(HC)
Jindal Power Limited; ACIT v. * (2016) 179 TTJ 736/70 taxmann.com 764 235
389/138 DTR 313 (Raipur)(Trib.) 738 227
739 228
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. v. PCIT (2016) 290 CTR 342/143 DTR 185/(2017) 2097 697
391 ITR 42/244 Taxman 3 (P&H)(HC)
Jitendra Chandralal Navlani v. UOI (2016) 386 ITR 288 (Bom.)(HC) 1798 585
Jitendra Kumar Soneja v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 269 (SMC)(Mum.)(Trib.) 95 31
Jitendra Kumar Soneja v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 105 34
Jivraj Tea Ltd v. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 298 (Guj.)(HC) 1732 562
Jiya Devi Sharma (SMt.) v. ACIT (2014) 165 TTJ 20 (URO) (2016) 68 SOT 899 271
57 (Jodh.)(Trib.)
JLC Electromet P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2016) 178 TTJ 28 (UO) (Jaipur)(Trib.) 742 228
JLC Electronet P Ltd v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 85/178 TTJ 28 (UO) (Jaipur) 889 269
(Trib.)
JMC Projects (India) Ltd. v. PCIT (2015) 67 taxmann.com 258/136 DTR 2339 788
279 (Guj.)(HC)
Jodhpur Development Authority; CIT v. * (2016) 139 DTR 1/287 CTR 473 307 106
(Raj.)(HC)
John Deere Equipment P. Ltd. v. ITO( 2015) 69 SOT 45 (URO)/172 TTJ 115 37
470/(2016) 45 ITR 389 (Pune)(Trib.)
John Deere India P. Ltd. v. DCIT & John Deere Equipment P. Ltd. v. ITO 1515 483
(2015) 172 TTJ 470/123 DTR 188/69 SOT 45 (2016) 45 ITR 389 (Pune)
(Trib.)

liv
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
John Deere India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2015) 69 SOT 45 (URO)/172 TTJ 470 115 37
(2016) 45 ITR 389 (Pune)(Trib.)
John Energy Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 154 ITD 451/173 TTJ 713/130 DTR 348 531 171
(Ahd.)(Trib.)
John Energy Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 130 DTR 348 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 535 172
Jolly Fantasy World Ltd.; CIT v. * (2015) 373 ITR 530/231 Taxman 668/ 2221 747
(2016) 139 DTR 163 (Guj.)(HC)
Jose Thomas v. DCIT (2016) 243 Taxman 483 (Ker.)(HC) 1757 570
Josh Builders and Developers P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2016) 389 ITR 314 (P&H) 1641 532
(HC)
JSR Constructions (P.) Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 159 ITD 749 (Bang.)(Trib.) 581 186
909 274
1664 541
1689 549
947 285
Jubilant Foodworks Ltd.; DCIT v. * (Delhi) (2016) 48 ITR 302 (Delhi)(Trib.) 734 226
Just Lifestyle P. Ltd. v. DCIT (Chamber’s Journal 2016-April – P. 86 (Mum.) 2466 836
(Trib.)
JVS Export v. Dy. CIT (2016) 130 DTR 411 (Mad.)(HC) 1803 588
Jyoti Jajoo (Smt.) v. CIT (2016) 139 DTR 129/288 CTR 87 (Raj.)(HC) 1143 353
Jyoti Khera; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 33/288 CTR 381/76 taxmann.com 185 2418 820
(Delhi)(HC)
Jyoti Khera; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 33/288 CTR 381/76 taxmann.com 1676 545
185/140 DTR 1 (Delhi)(HC)
Jyotsna Holdings P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 451/238 Taxman 558 (SC) 2139 713
K
K. C. Pipes P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 532 (P&H)(HC) 1141 353
K. Cargo Global Agencies, Indonesia v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 1042 (Ahd.) 1981 654
(Trib.)
K. Dhanakumar v. UOI (2016) 383 ITR 385/239 Taxman 283/286 CTR 28 1532 490
(Mad.)(HC)
K. G. Petrochem Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 176 TTJ 1 (UO) (Jaipur)(Trib.) 1706 553
42 12
K. J. Somaiya Trust; ACIT (E) v. * (2016) 158 ITD 57 (Mum.)(Trib.) 283 100
K. N. Pannirselvam; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 219 (Mad.)(HC) 1 1
2289 770
K. R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 46 ITR 73 (Chennai)(Trib.) 746 230

lv
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
K. R. Ganesh Kumar v. ACIT (2016) 383 ITR 165 (Mad.)(HC) 893 270
K. Ratanchand and Co. v. ITO (2016) 45 ITR 608 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 396 135
K. Raveendranathan Nair v. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 6 (SC) 2284 769
K. Ravikumar; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 233 (Ker) (HC) 1955 643
1953 643
K. Suryakumari Venu (Smt.) v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 1034 (Visakh)(Trib.) 726 224
K. Sundaramoorthy; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 154 (Karn.)(HC) 1956 643
Kabul Chawla; CIT v. * (2015) 281 CTR 45/126 DTR 130/234 Taxman 300 1905 627
(2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi)(HC)
Kailash Devi Prop (Smt.) v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 709 (Asr.)(Trib.) 1698 551
Kailash Jewels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 685 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1491 473
Kailash Shipping Services P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 630 (Mad.)(HC) 1298 404
Kaira District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 2550 871
633 (Guj.)(HC) 2557 873
Kaira District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 1768 574
183 (Guj.)(HC)
Kaiser Industries Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 47 ITR 656 (Amritsar)(Trib.) 752 232
753 232
860 259
1317 412
1708 554
Kalanjiam Development Financial Services; ITO v. * (2016) 156 ITD 213 302 105
(Chennai)(Trib.)
Kalapet Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 241 2098 697
Taxman 367 ((Mad.)(HC)
Kalathingal Faizal Rahiman; ITO v. * (2016) 158 ITD 488 (Cochin)(Trib.) 8 3
Kalavathi v. ITO (2014) 47 taxmann.com 282/(2017) 393 ITR 486 (Karn.) 967 292
(HC)
Kalinga Cultural Trust; ITO v. * (2015)155 ITD 291/41 ITR 147/177 TTJ 861 259
233/137 DTR 103 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
Kalluri Krishan Pushkar v. Dy. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 27/135 DTR 351 2515 853
(AP &T)(HC)
Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 177 TTJ 394/133 107 34
DTR 113/(2017) 162 ITD 18 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 2245 756
Kalpesh Laxminarayan Thakkar v. Dy. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 245 (Guj.)(HC) 1614 522
Kalyani Medical Stores v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 387 (Cal.)(HC) 1194 369

lvi
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Kamal Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit; ITO v. * (2016) 178 TTJ 1350 423
381/137 DTR 210 (Pune)(Trib.)
Kamala Brothers v. ITO (2016) 176 TTJ 178/131 DTR 106 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1067 328
1207 373
Kamlesh K. Singhal General Manager (MM) v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 247/243 407 137
Taxman 250 (Guj.)(HC) 2392 809
Kamlesh M. Kanungo HUF v. DCIT (2016) 160 ITD 331/182 TTJ 896 2110 703
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Kanaiyalal Dhansukhlal Sopariwala v. DVO (2016) 243 Taxman 378/(2017) 1042 320
391 ITR 56 (Guj.)(HC)
Kanco Enterprises Ltd.; JCIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 926 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1564 501
Kandathil M. Mammen v. UOI (2016) 290 CTR 644/241 Taxman 135/(2017) 2157 720
391 ITR 23 (Mad.)(HC)
Kaneria Granito Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 241 Taxman 315 (Guj.)(HC) 2117 705
Kanga & Co.; CIT v. * (2016) 133 DTR 257 (Bom.)(HC) 86 28
2311 778
Kannan Santhanam; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 792/(2017) 183 TTJ 8 1072 329
(Chennai)(UO)(Trib.) 1074 330
Kannur Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangam Ltd. 1346 422
v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 507/181 TTJ 538/(2017) 148 DTR 189 (Cochin)
(Trib.)
Kapil Ashok Bajaj; ITO v. * (2016) 49 ITR 44 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2447 831
Kapil Kumar Agarwal; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 56/237 Taxman 555/284 1093 335
CTR 75/131 DTR 87 (P&H)(HC)
Kapsons Associates; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 204 (P&H)(HC) 369 128
685 212
686 212
Karnataka Municipal Data Society v. ITO (2016) 389 ITR 441/76 Taxmann. 49 14
com 167 (Karn.)(HC)
Karnataka planters Coffee curing Work (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 1137 352
1/140 DTR 20/288 CTR 241/243 Taxman 21 (SC)
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (TDS) (2016) 383 2005 662
ITR 59/238 Taxman 287/139 DTR 33/288 CTR 77 (Karn.)(HC)
Karnataka Reddy Janasangha; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 229/241 Taxman 486 160
147 (Karn.)(HC)
Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 395 (SC) 1544 495
Karnataka State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 238 Taxman 299/137 881 266
DTR 45/(2017) 391 ITR 185/294 CTR 155 (Karn.)(HC)

lvii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 728 791 240
(Bang.)(Trib.) 1872 614
Karnataka State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd.; CIT 368 128
v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 240/143 DTR 67 (Karn.)(HC)
Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 37/74 taxmann.com 69/(2017) 2538 867
150 DTR 375 (Mad.)(HC)
Kavita Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 547 (Mum.)(Trib.) 447 150
720 223
Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 847/132 DTR 154 50
81/177 TTJ 90/46 ITR 739 (Delhi)(Trib.) 136 44
Kayal Syntex Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 84 (Guj.)(HC) 624 197
KBD Sugars & Distilleries Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 129 DTR 227 (Karn.)(HC) 1242 385
KEC Industries Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 177 TTJ 6 (UO) (Chd.)(Trib.) 1303 406
1304 407
Keihin Panalfa Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 407/286 CTR 107 (Delhi)(HC) 1393 438
Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 133 DTR 265 (Ker.)(HC) 1241 384
Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corpn. Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 388 ITR 600/142 2152 718
DTR 134/293 CTR 581/79 taxmann.com 429 (Ker.)(HC)
Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 386 ITR 148/ 2154 719
(2017) 149 DTR 45 (Ker.)(HC)
Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. 1343 421
CIT (2016) 383 ITR 610/ 238 Taxman 638 (Ker.)(HC)
Keshav & Company v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 798 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1015 311
Kethin Panalfa Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 407/286 CTR 107/133 DTR 684 212
261 (Delhi)(HC)
Khairunnisa Ebrahim (Late) (Smt.); CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 430 (Ker.)(HC) 2302 774
Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 485/238 Taxman 2107 701
620/285 CTR 178/ 133 DTR 253 (Bom.)(HC)
Khar Gyamkhana; DIT (E) v. * (2016) 385 ITR 162/137 DTR 249/240 331 115
Taxman 407/287 CTR 303 (Bom.)(HC)
Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandi Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 76 taxmann. 2010 664
com 117 (Guj.)(HC)
KHF Components Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 49 ITR 46 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1423 450
Khivraj Motors; CIT v. * (2016) 133 DTR 142 (Karn.)(HC) 2347 792
Khoday Breweries Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 1/243 Taxman 229 (SC) 70 22
617 194
Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 384 ITR 322 (Bom.)(HC) 1832 601

lviii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Kiran Kanwar (Smt.) v. UOI (2016) 143 DTR 297/290 CTR 403 (Raj.)(HC) 1751 568
Kiran Kanwar v. UOI (2016) 135 DTR 209/286 CTR 262 (Raj.)(HC) 1780 578
Kiritbhai Jayantilal Kundalia (HUF) v. ITO (2016) 242 Taxman 182(Guj.) 1110 342
(HC)
Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 158 ITD 309 (Pune)(Trib.) 2028 669
2048 677
Kisan Proteins (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 243 Taxman 11 (2017) 292 CTR 1759 571
345 (Guj.)(HC)
Kishore Ramchandani v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 134 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1316 411
Kishore Rao; CIT v. * (HUF) (2016) 387 ITR 196 (Karn.)(HC) 832 251
Kiti Construction Ltd.; CIT v. * (2015) 280 CTR 73/124 DTR 289/(2016) 2168 726
380 ITR 82 (MP) (HC)
Kiwi Foods India P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 48 ITR 555/(2017) 145 DTR 41 1160 360
(Delhi)(Trib.)
Knight Frank (India) (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 143 DTR 32/242 Taxman 925 279
313/290 CTR 25 (Bom.)(HC)
Knight Frank (India) (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 143 DTR 32/242 Taxman 1703 553
313/290 CTR 25 (Bom.)(HC)
Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (Bom.)(HC),www.itatonline.org 1705 553
931 280
Knorr Bremse India P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2015) 128 DTR 25/(2016) 380 ITR 1396 440
307/236 Taxman 318/282 CTR 44 (P&H)(HC)
Knorr-Bremse India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1453 459
Knox Investments (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 527 (Pune)(Trib.) 695 216
Kodak India (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 139 DTR 46/288 CTR 46 (Bom.)(HC) 1384 436
Kohinoor Hatcheries P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 493/76 taxmann. 1722 559
com 150 (T&AP)(HC)
Kondal Reddy Mandal Reddy; ITO v. * (2016) BCAJ–June P. 53 (Hyd.) 1057 325
(Trib.)
Kondal Reddy Mandal Reddy; ITO v. * (Hyd.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1103 338
Koninklijke-DSM-NV; DIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 115 (Bom.)(HC) 2417 820
Koramangala Club v. ITO (2016) 387 ITR 630 (Karn.)(HC) 2489 843
Koramangala Club v. ITO (Kar.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2490 844
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2016) 161 ITD 304/(2017) 183 TTJ 141 45
414/150 DTR 16 (Mum.)(Trib.)

lix
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Kotak Securities Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 1/285 CTR 63/239 Taxman 828 250
139/133 DTR 151 (SC)
Kotak Securities Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) Chamber’s Journal-2016 - April-P. 761 234
86 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Kothari Metals v. ITO (2016) 140 DTR 150/288 CTR 606 (Karn.)(HC) 1749 568
Kottakkal Wood Complex v. DCIT (2016) 386 ITR 433/72 taxmann.com 63 1625 526
(Ker.)(HC)
KPMG v. ACIT (2016) 177 TTJ 708/137 DTR 1 (Mum.)(Trib.) 824 249
Krishan Kumar Saraf v. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 387 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2387 806
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 527/ 274 98
(2017) 390 ITR 59/293 CTR 348 (Raj.)(HC)
Krishna Enterprises v. ACIT (2017) 146 DTR 73 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1056 325
Krutika Land (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 139 DTR 43/288 CTR 50 (Bom.)(HC) 2285 769
Krypton Datamatics Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 176 TTJ 11(UO) (Chd.)(Trib.) 2383 806
KSB Pumps Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 240 (Bom.)(HC) 628 197
Kshema Technologies Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 435/66 taxmann.com 245 88
165 (Karn.)(HC)
KSS Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 124 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1369 430
Kulbhushan Khosla v. CIT (2016) 143 DTR 281 (Delhi)(HC) 1750 568
Kumar Rajaram v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 772/178 TTJ 168 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1022 314
2355 796
Kumarakom Lake Resort Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Cochin)(Trib.); www.itatonline. 1318 412
org
Kundalika Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit; ITO v. * (2016) 178 TTJ 1350 423
381/137 DTR 210 (Pune)(Trib.)
Kundles Loh Udyog v. ITO (2016) 45 ITR 11 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1179 365
Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 571 (Delhi)(HC) 1903 626
L
L G Electronics India P. Ltd. v. P CIT (2016) 388 ITR 135/290 CTR 283/143 2329 785
DTR 105/ (2017) 79 taxmann.com 418 (All.)(HC)
L. G. Polymers India (P.) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016)157 ITD 1113 (Visakha) 762 234
(Trib.)
L. H. Sugar Factory Ltd.; ACIT v. * (Luck)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1547 496
L. G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 179 TTJ 705/64 taxmann. 2272 764
com 111/138 DTR 194 (Delhi)(Trib.)

lx
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
L. G. Polymers India (P.) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 1113 822 248
(Visakhapatnam)(Trib.)
L. K. India Pvt. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 627/290 CTR 118/143 494 162
DTR 38 (Guj.)(HC)
Lahar Singh Siroya v. ACIT (2016) 138 DTR 331 (Karn.)(HC) 60 18
Lahoti Overseas Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2247 757
Lala Lajpatrai Memorial Trust; DIT (E) v. * (2016) 383 ITR 345/136 DTR 311 107
233/240 Taxman 557 (Bom.)(HC)
Lala Lajpatrai Memorial Trust; DIT(E) v. * (2016) 383 ITR 345/136 DTR 16 5
233/240 Taxman 557 (Bom.)(HC)
Lalabhai Kamabhai Bharwad v. CIT (2016) 140 DTR 153/289 CTR 36 72 1584 511
taxmann.com 184 (Guj.)(HC)
Laljibhai Mohanbhai Ghori v. CIT (2016) 243 Taxman 535 (Guj.)(HC) 1628 527
Lancy Constructions; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 728 (Karn.)(HC) 1904 626
Land Acquisition Collector v. Addl. CIT (2016) 242 Taxman 389 (P&H)(HC) 2052 678
Land End Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www. 103 33
itatonline.org
Land End Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www. 1349 422
itatonline.org
Lanxess India (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 472 (Bom.)(HC) 1373 431
Laqshya Media (P.) Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 160 ITD 35/182 TTJ 318 (Mum.) 59 17
(Trib.)
Laqshya Media (P.) Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 160 ITD 35/182 TTJ 318 (Mum.) 1984 656
(Trib.)
Laqshya Media (P.) Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 160 ITD 35/182 TTJ 318 (Mum.) 2026 668
(Trib.)
Larsen & Tourbo Limited v. UOI (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org 2313 779
Last Peak Data (P) Ltd.; ITO v. * (2015) 155 ITD 1099/(2016) 175 TTJ 1568 502
65/131 DTR 31 (Kol.)(Trib.)
Lata Jain (Ms.); Pr. CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 543 (Delhi)(HC) 1902 625
Lavanya Land (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 139 DTR 43/288 CTR 50 (Bom.) 2285 769
(HC)
Laxmandas Sujandas Dalpat v. ITO (2016) 381 ITR 283/236 Taxman 1154 358
372/134 DTR 351/287 CTR 666 (Guj.)(HC)
Laxmi Agencies; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 307 (Kar.)(HC) 1333 417
Laxmi Business Promotions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 558 (Cal.)(HC) 1963 646

lxi
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Lead Counsel of Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF). In RE (2016) 381 ITR 2061 682
1/237 Taxman 667/283 CTR 361/130 DTR 369 (AAR)
Leena R. Phadnis (Mrs.) v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 721/241 Taxman 34/(2017) 1629 528
293 CTR 175 (Bom.)(HC)
Lehman Brothers & Advisors (P.) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 1003 821 248
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Leighton Welspun Contractors (P.) Ltd.; ADIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 515/47 2500 847
ITR 97 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Leighton Welspun Contractors P. Ltd.; Addl. DIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 2496 845
515/47 ITR 97 (Mum.)(Trib.)
LGW Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 130 DTR 201 (Kol.)(Trib.) 237 85
395 135
772 236
923 278
1065 328
2198 739
Li & Fung (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 498/178 TTJ 10/136 1451 458
DTR 15 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Liberty Footwear Co. v. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 195/238 Taxman 89/286 CTR 1266 394
369/136 DTR 31 (SC)
Limtex Tea & Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 156 ITD 900/176 TTJ 265/131 56 17
DTR 209 (Kol.)(Trib.)
Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 129 DTR 355/282 CTR 588 1801 587
(Guj.)(HC)
Little Servants of Divine Providence Charitable trust v. ITO (Cochin)(Trib.); 2134 711
www.itatonline.org
Liva Healthcare Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 63 (Mum.)(Trib.) 733 226
735 227
Liva Healthcare Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 63/181 TTJ 433 (Mum.) 696 217
(Trib.) 697 217
714 222
Living Media India Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2015) 70 SOT 536/40 ITR 610 (Delhi) 603 190
(Trib.)
Lohia Securities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 265 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1251 389
Loreal India Private Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1478 468
LS Cable and Systems Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 288 CTR 23/(2016) 385 ITR 2175 730
99/138 DTR 340/(2017) 78 taxmann.com 55 (Delhi)(HC)
LS Cable Ltd.; DIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 427 (Delhi)(HC) 128 41

lxii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Lubrizol Advanced Materials India (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 1493 473
249/180 TTJ 616 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
Lupin Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 10 (Mum)(Trib.) 721 223
935 282
1126 347
M
M Sons Gems N Jewellery (P.) Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 530 2004 661
(Delhi)(HC)
M. Amareswara Rao v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 657/136 DTR 153/178 TTJ 39 11
700 (Visakha)(Trib)
M. Bala Narasimha Reddy v. PCIT (2016) 382 ITR 307 (T&AP)(HC) 2102 699
M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Delhi)(Trib); www.itatonline.org 2451 832
2274 765
M. Hemanathan; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 177/239 Taxman 533/133 DTR 1975 651
226/285 CTR 182 (Mad.)(HC)
M. M. Aqua Technologies Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 441/242 Taxman 930 280
153/288 CTR 372/139 DTR 315 (Delhi)(HC)
M. S. Luvish Projects (P) Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 175 TTJ 153 (Mum.) 459 153
(Trib.)
M. Sathyanarayana v. ITO (2016) 238 Taxman 79 (Karn.)(HC) 85 28
M. D. Infra Developers v. DCIT (2016) 385 ITR 82/240 Taxman 237/287 2100 698
CTR 431/138 DTR 298 (Guj.)(HC)
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 291 (Mum.)(Trib.) 699 218
Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 142 DTR 358 (Mad.)(HC) 619 195
Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 239 Taxman 189 (Mad.)(HC) 655 204
Madanlal F. Jain v. DCIT (2016) 160 ITD 1/143 DTR 150/181 TTJ 948 430 144
(Ahd.)(Trib.) 740 228
Madhu Keshwani; CIT v. * (Smt.)(2016) 380 ITR 566 (All.)(HC) 1922 633
Madhukar C. Ashar v. UOI (2016) 239 Taxman 367/139 DTR 268 (Bom.) 2394 810
(HC)
Madura Micro Finance Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 918 (Chennai) 2465 836
(Trib.)
Magneti Marelli Power Train India P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 1376 432
469/290 CTR 60/75 taxmann.com 213/142 DTR 329 (Delhi)(HC)
Mahagun Hotels P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 45 ITR 347 (Delhi)(Trib.) 456 152
457 153
536 172

lxiii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Mahanagar Gas Ltd.; DCIT v. * (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 873 263
Mahanagar Gas Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 158 ITD 1016 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2050 677
Maharani Luxmi Bai Memorial Education Society; CCIT v. * (2015) 235 220 79
Taxman 556/(2016) 287 CTR 109/(Uttarakhand) (HC)
Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota v. CIT (2016) 290 CTR 601/144 DTR 249/ 209 74
(2017) 390 ITR 532/244 Taxman 139 (SC)
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) v. CIT (2016) 136 2106 701
DTR 233/290 CTR 337 (Bom.)(HC)
Mahender Kumar Bader; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 48 ITR 596 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 985 300
Mahendra Brothers Exports (P.) Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 772 (Mum.) 381 131
(Trib.) 469 156
Mahendra Kumar Bader; DCIT v. * (Jaipur)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 998 305
Mahendra Kumar Saha v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 590 (Cuttack)(Trib.) 749 231
Mahendrabhai B. Shrivastav v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 755/181 TTJ 713 (2017) 1176 364
152 DTR 72 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1234 382
Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel v. ITSC (2016) 241 Taxman 94 (Guj.)(HC) 2164 724
Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 123/181 722 223
TTJ 271 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2015 665
Mahindra Telecommunications Investment (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 448 150
600/180 TTJ 434 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Mahindra-BT Investment Company (Mauritius) Ltd., In re (2016) 389 ITR 1010 309
19/289 CTR 614/73 taxmann.com 74 (AAR)
Maine Global Enterprises (P.) Ltd v. ACIT (2016) 156 ITD 841 (Mum.) 1490 472
(Trib.)
Majmudar & Co.; ACIT v. * (2016) 181 TTJ 577/52 ITR 54/73 taxman.com 267 96
77 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Makhan Singh v. ITO (2016) 236 Taxman 364/136 DTR 336 (P&H)(HC) 18 6
Malankara Plantations Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 236 Taxman 61 (Ker.)(HC) 1125 347
Malay Shrivastava v. DCIT (2016) 385 ITR 14/135 DTR 249/287 CTR 387 1791 584
(MP)(HC)
Maltex Malsters Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 243 Taxman 581 (P&H)(HC) 438 147
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn (Salem) Ltd. v. 2003 661
Chinnadurai (2016) 385 ITR 656/240 Taxman 162/142 DTR 65/290 CTR 2542 868
297 (Mad.)(HC)
Manas Sewa Samiti v. CCIT (2016) 282 CTR 302/236 Taxman 546 (All.) 223 80
(HC)
Manasi Mahendra Pitkar (Smt.) v. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 605 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1165 361

lxiv
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Manbhar Devi Meena (Smt.); CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 235 (Raj.)(HC) 2396 811
Mangal Keshav Securities Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 46 ITR 458 (Mum.)(Trib.) 745 229
Mangalam Drugs & Organics Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2483 841
Mangalam Timber Products Ltd v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 758 (Cuttack)(Trib.) 918 277
Mangalam Timber Products Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 176 TTJ 21 (UO)(Ctk.) 1946 641
(Trib.)
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi works; CIT v. * (2016) 289 CTR 457/142 DTR 1036 318
201 (SC)
Manganese Ore India Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 413/238 Taxman 682 212
315/138 DTR 364 (Bom.)(HC)
Manish H. Agarwal v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 287 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1201 372
Manishkumar Tulsidas Kaneriya v. Dy. CIT (2016) 242 Taxman 164/(2017) 1773 576
145 DTR 26 (Guj.)(HC)
Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singhv. UOI (2016) 237 Taxman 116 1115 343
(P&H)(HC)
Manoj Murarka v. ACIT (2016) 156 ITD 793/(2017) 184 TTJ 555 (Kol.) 45 13
(Trib.)
Mansarovar Commercial (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 134 DTR 105/287 CTR 1799 586
28 (Delhi)(HC)
Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 514/141 DTR 5 2
321/289 CTR 381 (Mad.)(HC)
Manural Huda Trust v. CIT (2016) 138 DTR 28 (Ker.)(HC) 2424 822
Marcopolo Products (P.) Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 159 ITD 266 (Kol.)(Trib.) 718 223
719 223
887 268
912 275
Marine Geology Services LLP U. K., In re (2016) 242 Taxman 491 (AAR) 955 287
Market Committee Sirsa; ITO v. * (2016) 179 TTJ 29 (UO)(Chd.)(Trib.) 2452 832
Market Committee, Shahabad; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 535 (P&H)(HC) 497 162
1683 546
Maroli Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandi Ltd.;ACIT v. * (2016) 239 1711 554
Taxman 393 (SC)
Martin & Harris Laboratories Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 48 ITR 641 (Mum.) 855 258
(Trib.)
Marubeni Itochu Steel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 620/177 1492 473
TTJ 539/134 DTR 145 (Delhi)(Trib.).
Maruti Impex v. JCIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1212 375

lxv
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Mashreq Bank PSC v. DDIT (2016) 176 TTJ 85/131 DTR 1 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1357 426
Mastek Ltd. v. A CIT (2016) 387 ITR 72 (Guj.)(HC) 1725 560
Matchless Glass Services P. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 370/237 Taxman 1151 356
195/284 CTR 150 (Delhi)(HC)
Max Healthscribe Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 386 ITR 479 (Karn.)(HC) 241 86
Max India Ltd. (No. 2); CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 81/75 taxmann.com 268 355 123
(P&H)(HC) 638 200
Max India Ltd.; CIT v. * (No. 1) (2016) 388 ITR 74/243 Taxman 40 (P&H) 491 161
(HC) 637 199
Mayank Chaturvedi v. UOI (2016) 387 ITR 593 (All.)(HC) 1599 516
Mazgaon Dock Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 46 ITR 162 (Mum.)(Trib.) 404 137
388 133
747 230
1707 553
792 241
943 283
1710 554
MBG Commodities (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 50 ITR 129/(2017) 163 ITD 130 2127 709
(Hyd.)(Trib.)
McDowell and Co. Ltd.;CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 80 (Karn.)(HC) 932 281
Mcleod Russel India Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 45 ITR 182 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1575 507
Md. Sayeed v. Dy. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 351 (Patna)(HC) 2211 744
Medall Health Care P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 36 (Chennai)(Trib.) 2389 807
Medplus Health Services (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 105/48 ITR 396 1123 346
(Hyd.)(Trib.)
Megatrends Inc v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 16/74 taxmann.com 197/(2017) 149 2191 737
DTR 113 (Mad.)(HC)
Megatrends Inc. v. CIT & Anr. (2016) 287 CTR 687 (Mad.)(HC) 1649 535
Megatrends Inc. v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 13/238 Taxman 192/139 DTR 96/287 2193 738
CTR 689 (Mad.)(HC)
Megatrends Inc. v. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 53/139 DTR 93/287 CTR 689 (Mad.) 2192 737
(HC)
Megh Chand Meena, HUF; ITO v. * (2016) 159 ITD 457/181 TTJ 240 9 3
(Jaipur)(Trib.)
Megh Malhar Finstock (P.) Ltd; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 593 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 2275 765
Meghalaya Steel Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 217/132 DTR 273/284 CTR 1312 409
321/238 Taxman 559 (SC)

lxvi
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Meghalaya Steel Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 217/132 DTR 273/284 CTR 2544 869
321/238 Taxman 559 (SC)
Meghmani Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 243 Taxman 551/389 ITR 281 (Guj.) 1729 561
(HC)
Meghmani Energy Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 281/243 Taxman 551 1721 558
(Guj.)(HC)
Mehru Electricals and Mechanical Engineers Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 492 161
ITR 169 (Raj.)(HC)
Mercedes Benz Education Academy v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 488/176 TTJ 228 81
365/131 DTR 302 (Pune)(Trib.) 1867 612
Merciful Jesus Church v. CIT (2016) 160 ITD 42 (Cochin)(Trib.) 320 110
Merck Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 70/241 Taxman 535/290 CTR 226/143 1371 431
DTR 86 (Bom.)(HC)
MERO Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., In re (2016) 387 ITR 274/243 Taxman 322/289 155 50
CTR 1/140 DTR 394 (AAR)
Metrochem Industries Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 181 (Guj.)(HC) 1273 396
627 197
MGF Automobiles Ltd.; CIT v. * (2015)63 taxmann.com 137 (Delhi)(HC) 1895 623
Micro Ink Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 132/175 TTJ 8 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1488 472
Micro Ink Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 132/175 TTJ 8/129 DTR 49 1370 430
(Ahd.)(Trib.)
Micro Instruments Company; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 46/289 CTR 152/75 1307 408
taxmann.com 304 (P&H)(HC) 1677 545
2292 771
Micro Labs Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 1/283 CTR 9/237 Taxman 1268 394
74/130 DTR 113 (SC)
Micro Spacematrix Solution P. Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2521 856
Microlabs Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 490 (Karn.)(HC) 363 125
547 176
Microsemi India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2016) 157 ITD 220 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 255 91
Milestone Tradelinks P. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 606 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 2366 799
Milestone Tradelinks P. Ltd. v. ITO (Ahad.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2379 804
Mili Consultants & Investment (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 160 ITD 72 (Mum.) 470 156
(Trib.)
Minitechs Aerotools P. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 166 (Karn.)(HC) 2297 772
Mintu Sayermal Jain (Mrs) v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1213 376
Mirco Instruments Company (P & H) (HC); CIT v. * www.itatonline.org 1313 410

lxvii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Mirco Instruments Company; CIT v. * (P&H)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2305 775
Mitchell Drilling International P. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2015) 234 Taxman 818/ 950 286
(2016) 380 ITR 130 (Delhi)(HC)
Mitsubishi Motors corporation; DIT v. * (2016) 179 TTJ 25 (UO) (Delhi) 1533 491
(Trib.)
Mitsui & Co. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 238 Taxman 575 (SC) 2325 783
Mitsui and Co. India P. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 360 (Delhi)(HC) 1899 624
Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 178 2456 833
TTJ 490/136 DTR 282 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Mobisoft Tele Solutions (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 221 (P&H) 690 214
(HC)
Modern Motors; ACIT v. * (2016) 48 ITR 579/142 DTR 0145/181 TTJ 813 509 166
(Jaipur)(Trib.) 883 267
933 281
Modern Spinners Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 472 / 243 Taxman 437 (SC) 616 194
Mohanjeet Singh v. JCIT (2016) 159 ITD 582 (Chd.)(Trib.) 2404 814
Mohd. Imran Baig v. ITO (2016) 130 DTR 33 / 175 TTJ 319 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 1060 326
Mohd. Imran Baig v. ITO (Hyd.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1063 327
Monarch Educational Society; CIT(E) v. * (2016) 387 ITR 416 (Delhi)(HC) 1767 574
Monica India (No.1); CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 608 / 240 Taxman 60 / 286 648 202
CTR 426 / 135 DTR 281 (Bom.)(HC)
Monica Oswal (Ms)(FB); CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 453 / 133 DTR 15 / 284 1214 376
CTR 188 (P&H)(HC)
Monika India v. ITO (2016) 386 ITR 639 (Bom.)(HC) 2300 773
Monika India; CIT v. * (No.2) (2016) 386 ITR 617 / 286 CTR 435 / 135 2222 748
DTR 290 (Bom.)(HC)
Moonlight Tools (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 49 ITR 39 (Chd.)(Trib.) 707 220
Moradabad Development Authority; ITO v. * (2016) 159 ITD 971 / 49 ITR 288 101
270 / (2017) 183 TTJ 278 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Mother Theresa Educational Society; ITO v. * (2016) 158 ITD 473 291 102
(Visakha)(Trib.) 854 257
Motherson Sumi Infotech & Design Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2015) 155 ITD 8 / 174 1476 467
TTJ 766 / 129 DTR 106 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Motilal R. Todi v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 149 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1854 608
Motto Tiles P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 280 / 73 taxmann.com 176 1886 619
(Guj.)(HC)

lxviii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO (2016) 138 DTR 223 / 70 taxmann. 2001 661
com 45 (Guj.)(HC)
Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO (TDS) (2016) 388 ITR 343 / 70 1994 658
taxmann.com 45 (Guj.)(HC)
Mridu Hari Dalmia Parivar Trust v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 521 / 139 DTR 143 1114 343
/ 179 TTJ 577 (Delhi)(Trib.) 995 304
Mridul Garg v. UOI (2016) 387 ITR 593 (All.)(HC) 1599 516
Mridula Prop. Dhruv Fabrics; CIT v. * (2015) 234 Taxman 245 / (2016) 131 1970 648
DTR 308 / 284 CTR 293 (P&H)(HC)
MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. DIT (2016) 161 ITD 602 (Mum.) 1669 542
(Trib.)
MSV International Inc.; DDIT (IT) v. * (2016) 157 ITD 757 / 143 DTR 249 183 62
/ 181 TTJ 480 / 51 ITR 428 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Mudra Foundation for Communications Research & Education v. CCIT 17 5
(2016) 237 Taxman 139 / 137 DTR 293 / 287 CTR 135 (Guj.)(HC)
Mukesh Ratilal Marolia; CIT v. * (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org 1198 371
Mul Chand Malu (HUF) v. ACIT (2016) 384 ITR 46 / 286 CTR 448 / 241 1618 523
Taxman 189 / 136 DTR 12 (Gau.)(HC)
Mul Chand Malu v. UOI (2016) 383 ITR 367 / 285 CTR 89 / 69 taxmann. 1593 514
com 4 / 132 DTR 297 (Gauhati)(HC)
Muller and Philips (India) Ltd v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 69 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1856 609
Multi Act Realty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www. 798 242
itatonline.org
Mundial Export Import Finance (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 131 DTR 195 / 284 694 216
CTR 87 / 238 Taxman 34 (Cal.)(HC)
Munjal Sales Corpn. v. CIT (2016) 243 Taxman 523 / (2017) 393 ITR 248 1675 544
/ 150 DTR 293 (P&H)(HC)
Munjal Showa Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 555 / 239 Taxman 239 / 137 1817 593
DTR 231 (Delhi)(HC)
Murasoli Trust v. ADIT (E) (2016) 156 ITD 761 / 48 ITR 472 / 139 DTR 298 104
320 / 179 TTJ 378 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Muthappan Enterprises; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 551 / 138 DTR 310 2104 700
(Ker.)(HC)
Muthoot Bankers (Aryasala); CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 51 / 71 taxmann.com 2511 851
110 / 141 DTR 198/289 CTR 309 (Ker.)(HC)

lxix
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Muthoot Finance Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2016) 52 ITR 241 (Cochin)(Trib.) 600 190
704 220
809 245
55 16
N
N. Jegatheesan v. Dy. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 410 / 237 Taxman 490 / 138 DTR 2103 699
17 / 287 CTR 292 (Mad.)(HC)
N. K. Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 142 DTR 162 / 72 taxmann.com 289 1229 381
/ (2017) 292 CTR 354 (Guj.)(HC) 1681 546
1961 645
N. Mohammed Ali v. ITO (2016) 237 Taxman 211 (Mad.)(HC) 894 270
N.G. Jewellers; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 403 (Raj.)(HC) 1916 631
N.K. Proteins Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 389 ITR 541 / 76 taxmann.com 241 (Guj.) 1754 569
(HC)
Naath industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2278 766
Nadim Dilip Bhai Panjvani v. ITO (2016) 383 ITR 375 / 237 Taxman 480 1619 524
(Guj.)(HC)
Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-operative Society Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 238 53 15
Taxman 689 / 135 DTR 22 / 290 CTR 211 (Karn.)(HC)
Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-operative Society Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 76 53 15
taxmann.com 2 / (2017) 390 ITR 415 / 291 CTR 287 (Karn.)(HC)
Nahar Export Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 33 / 76 taxmann.com 146 1284 399
(P&H)(HC) 2397 811
Nai Rajdhani Path Pramandal v. CIT (TDS) (2016) 384 ITR 328 / 238 2072 687
Taxman 281 (Patna)(HC)
Namdev Arora v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 434 / 241 Taxman 303 / (2017) 147 1132 350
DTR 138 (P&H)(HC)
Namita V. Samant v. CIT (2016) 161 ITD 15 (Mum.)(Trib.) 33 10
Nand Lal Popli v. Dy. CIT (2016) 160 ITD 413 (Chd.)(Trib.) 948 285
1025 314
Nanubhai Keshavlal Chokshi HUF v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 211 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1024 314
Narain Singla v. Pc.CIT (2016) 156 ITD 275 (Chd.)(Trib.) 2382 805
Narasu’s Spinning Mills v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 512 (Chennai)(Trib.) 590 187
596 189
864 261
Narayan Rao; ITO v. * (2016) 46 ITR 178 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 1082 332
Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 2375 803

lxx
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Narayani & Sons (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 141 DTR 315 / 289 CTR 301 / 2501 847
73 taxmann.com 21 (Cal.)(HC)
Narendra N. Thacker; ACIT v. * (2016) 45 ITR 188 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1620 524
Naresh Chauhan v. Dy. CIT (2016) 48 ITR 1 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1906 627
2195 739
Narindera Industries v. ACIT (2016) 176 TTJ 35 (UO)(Chd.)(Trib.) 2478 840
Narmina Trade Investment P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 243 (Bom.)(HC) 25 8
National Co-op. Bank Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 702 (Karn.)(HC) 1997 659
National Council of Science Museum; ITO v. * (2016) 159 ITD 180 (Kol.) 224 80
(Trib.)
National Dairy Development Board v. ACIT (2016) 243 Taxman 560 (Guj.) 1756 570
(HC)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakhwinder Kaur (2016) 236 Taxman 558 72 23
(P& H)(HC)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ritu Kunawar and ors. (2016) 380 ITR 467 2008 664
/ 282 CTR 597 / 129 DTR 418 (P&H)(HC)
National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT(IT) (2016) 383 ITR 648 1353 425
/ 131 DTR 113 / 284 CTR 373 / 238 Taxman 40 (Delhi)(HC)
National Stock Exchange v. Addl. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 850 / 178 TTJ 409 2532 864
/ 136 DTR 49 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Natraj Engineers (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 66 taxmann.com 48 / 286 CTR 2124 708
103 (Patna)(HC)
Nav Maharashtra Vidyalaya. v. (2016) 161 ITD 732 / 182 TTJ 729 (Pune) 2508 850
(Trib.)
Nayan C. Shah v. ITO (2016) 386 ITR 304 / 240 Taxman 115 (Guj.)(HC) 2427 823
Nayan Kothari; Dy. DIT(I) v. * (2016) 383 ITR 276 / 236 Taxman 398 (MP) 1613 522
(HC)
NCR Corporation India (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 725 / 240 Taxman 928 280
598 / 293 CTR 225 (Karn.)(HC)
NE Technologies India (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 151 (AP)(HC) 2239 754
NEC HCL System Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 176 TTJ 436 (Delhi) 1239 384
(Trib.) 874 264
Neela S. Karyakarte v. ITO (2016) 176 TTJ 52 (URO) / BCAJ–March–P. 30 1086 333
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Neeraj Badaya v. ADIT (2016) 157 ITD 1016 / 137 DTR 283 / 179 TTJ 387 159 51
(SMC)(Jaipur) (Trib.)
Nemichand P. Jain HUF; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 257 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1001 306

lxxi
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Neo Sports Broadcast (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 136 / 181 TTJ 417 2359 797
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 142 DTR 329 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2376 803
Neon Solutions P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 667 (Bom.)(HC) 1679 545
Neon Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 90 30
Nestle India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 384 ITR 334 (Delhi)(HC) 1731 562
1735 563
Neuland Laboratories Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 422 (Hyd.) (Trib.) 817 247
Neuland Laboratories Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 422 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 818 247
New Delhi Television Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 160 ITD 491 / 182 TTJ 46 1365 429
(Delhi)(Trib.)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Sunita Sharma and Ors. (2016) 380 ITR 2008 664
467 / 282 CTR 597 / 129 DTR 418 (P&H)(HC) 2008 664
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhoyabhai Haribhai Bharvad (2016) 242 1998 660
Taxman 415 (Guj.)(HC)
New Kenilworth Hotel P. Ltd v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 201 / (2017) 292 CTR 1281 398
336 (Cal.)(HC) 77 24
440 147
New Mangalore Port Trust v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 399 (Bang.)(Trib.) 455 152
769 236
New Mangalore Port Trust; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 434 / 238 Taxman 397 2344 790
/ 283 CTR 342 (Karn.)(HC) 2200 740
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. CIT (2016) 161 ITD 105 317 109
/ 181 TTJ 289 (Delhi)(Trib.)
New Skies Satellite BV; DIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 114 / 238 Taxman 577 / 164 54
285 CTR 1 / 133 DTR 185 (Delhi)(HC)
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 172 (Mad.)(HC) 639 200
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 172 / 240 649 202
Taxman 473 (Mad.)(HC)
NGC Network Asia LLC v. Jt. CIT (2016) 47 ITR 162 / 175 TTJ 403 / 131 190 65
DTR 145 (Mum.)(Trib.)
NHPC Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 561 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1940 639
2129 709
Niagam Hotels & Builders (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 134 DTR 158 (Delhi)(HC) 417 141
Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 470 (Bom.)(HC) 359 124
572 183
657 204

lxxii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Nikki Drug & Chemicals (P.) Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 680 / 236 1921 632
Taxman 305 / 129 DTR 393 / 293 CTR 398 (Delhi)(HC)
Nilesh Pravin Vora & Yatin Pravin Vora (Legal heirs of Pravin Laxmidas 1081 332
Vora) v. ITO (2016) 45 ITR 228 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Nileswar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham 1344 421
v. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 34 / 129 DTR 161 (Ker.)(HC)
Nilkanth Concast P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 48 ITR 264 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1637 531
Nilkanth Concast P. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 568 / 241 Taxman 194 1636 531
(Delhi)(HC) 2219 747
Nimbus Communications Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 496 (Mum.)(Trib.) 386 132
859 259
1454 460
Nimesh N. Kampani v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 743 229
Nirav Modi; CIT v. * (2016) 138 DTR 81 / 241 Taxman 255 / (2017) 390 2340 789
ITR 292 / 291 CTR 245 (Bom.)(HC)
Nirma Chemicals and works Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 286 CTR 505 / 132 2125 708
DTR 63 (Guj.)(HC)
Nirma Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 242 Taxman 286 (Guj.)(HC) 1774 576
Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 / 131 DTR 35 1738 565
/ 284 CTR 244 (Bom.)(HC)
Nirmal Kumar Agarwal; DCIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 749 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 2487 843
Nirmal Kumar Ravindra Kumar-HUF v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 10 / 240 1111 342
Taxman 404 / 288 CTR 710 / 140 DTR 432 (Cal.)(HC)
Nirmala Keshwani (Smt.); CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 566 (All.)(HC) 1922 633
Nisha Keshwani (Smt.); CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 566 (All.)(HC) 1922 633
Nishith Surendrabhai Soni v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 99 (Guj.)(HC) 1726 560
Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 371 (Delhi)(HC) 631 198
1019 313
Nitta Gelatine India Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 243 Taxman 245 (Ker.)(HC) 554 177
Nitul B. Shah v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 830 / 141 DTR 180 / 181 TTJ 284 61 18
(Mum.)(Trib.)
NMDC Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 56 (T&AP)(HC) 1572 503
Noble Medical Foundation & Research Centre; ITO v. * (2015) 68 SOT 343 292 102
(URO)(Pune) (Trib.)
Noorul Islam Educational Trust v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 489 / 243 Taxman 1582 511
519 / 144 DTR 339 (2017) 291 CTR 230 (SC)

lxxiii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Norma Detergent (P) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 56 / 238 Taxman 259 2125 708
/ 286 CTR 505 / 132 DTR 63 (Guj.)(HC)
Nortel Networks India (P.) Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 176 TTJ 25 (UO) / 66 1504 477
taxmann.com 177 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Nortel Networks India (P.) Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 971 / 176 TTJ 1465 463
25 (UO) (Delhi)(Trib.)
Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT (2016) 386 ITR 353 / 241 129 41
Taxman 464 / 288 CTR 383 (Delhi)(HC)
Novell Software Development (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 2244 756
237 / 178 TTJ 629 (Bang.)(Trib.)
Novo Nordisk Pharma India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 134 / 144 DTR 369 2282 768
/ (2017) 244 Taxman 53 / 291 CTR 21 (SC)
NTT Data India Enterprises Application Services (P.) Ltd v. ACIT (2016) 1466 464
157 ITD 897 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
Nukala Ramakrishna Eluru v. DCIT (Vizag)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2457 833
Nuts ‘n’ Spices v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 293 (Chennai)(Trib.) 2128 709
NYK Line India Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 175 TTJ 180 / 132 DTR 7 (Mum.) 390 133
(Trib.)
O
O.G. Sunil v. Dy. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 617 (Ker.)(HC) 2309 777
O.P. Srivastava; CIT v. * (2013) 219 Taxman 133 / (2014) 265 CTR 481 / 574 183
(2016) 385 ITR 547 (All.)(HC) 1129 348
O.P. Srivastava; CIT v. * (2013) 219 Taxman 133 / (2014) 265 CTR 484 / 28 9
(2016) 385 ITR 547 (All.)(HC)
Object Frontier Software (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 75 taxmann.com 169 2402 813
(Mad.)(HC)
Obopay Mobile Technology India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 982 / 453 151
177 TTJ 191 / 46 ITR 42 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1470 465
1467 464
1458 462
Obopay Mobile Technology India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 982 1523 485
/ 46 ITR 42 / 176 TTJ 191 (Bang.)(Trib.)
Office of XEN, PHED v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 373 / (2017) 183 TTJ 283 2081 691
(Jaipur)(Trib.)
Official Assignee, High Court, Madras v. T.R. Bhuvaneswari (2016) 385 ITR 2119 706
105 / 240 Taxman 266 (Mad.)(HC)
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 243 Taxman 105 / 289 208 73
CTR 403 / 142 DTR 57 (Guj.)(HC)

lxxiv
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 710 641 200
(Uttarakhand)(HC)
Olwin Tiles (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 291 / 237 Taxman 1824 597
342 / 283 CTR 200 / 13O DTR 209 (Guj.)(HC)
Om Prakash Kukreja; ITO v. * (2016) 159 ITD 190 / 178 TTJ 1 / 134 DTR 1851 607
208 (Chd.)(Trib.)
Om Sakthi Narayani Siddar Peedam Charitable Trust; DCIT v. * (2016) 47 347 120
ITR 787 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Om Shakthy Agencies (Madras) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 1062 / 1910 628
177 TTJ 419 (Chennai)(Trib.) 901 272
Oman International Bank S.A.O.G.; DIT (IT) v. * (2016) 386 ITR 151 50 14
(Bom.)(HC) 647 202
Omax Bikes Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 566 (Chd.)(Trib.) 591 188
Omni Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 505 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1184 366
Oracle India (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 1 / 241 Taxman 253 / 288 1381 435
CTR 118 / 139 DTR 186 (Delhi)(HC)
Oracle Systems Corporation v. DIT(IT) (2016) 383 ITR 434 / 238 Taxman 1737 564
165 / 137 DTR 33 / 287 CTR 636 (Delhi)(HC)
Orchid Griha Nirman (P.) Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 161 ITD 818 / 182 TTJ 415 1012 310
(Kol.)(Trib.)
Orchid Pharma Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 182 TTJ 809 / (2017) 162 ITD 303 1362 428
(Chennai)(Trib.)
Orient Blackswan (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 944 / 181 TTJ 124 96 31
(Hyd.)(Trib.)
Orpak Systems Ltd. v. ADIT(IT) (2016) 176 TTJ 655 / 133 DTR 137 (Mum.) 153 50
(Trib.)
Overseas Enterprises v. UOI (Patna)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2568 880
Overseas Infrastructures; DCIT v. * (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1187 367
Oxford Softech P Ltd v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 794 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2458 834
P
P. M. Abdulla v. ITO (2015) 60 taxmann.com 52 / (2016) 380 ITR 125 / 1228 381
139 DTR 124 (Karn.)(HC)
P. S. Velusamy; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 408 (Mad.)(HC) 1285 399
P. Sasikumar (Dr.); CIT v. * (2016) 287 ITR 8 (Ker.)(HC) 1893 622
P.G.& W. Sawoo Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 385 ITR 60 / 136 DTR 113 / 286 1712 555
CTR 460 / 239 Taxman 257 (SC)
P.K. Rajasekar v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 189 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1157 359

lxxv
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
P.M. Rungta; ITO v. * (HUF) (2016) 176 TTJ 648 / 133 DTR 146 (Mum.) 1002 306
(Trib.)
P.M. Rungta; ITO v. * (HUF) (2016) 46 ITR 579 (Mum.)(Trib.) 997 305
P.V. Chandran; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 479 (Mad.)(HC) 1292 402
Page Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 680 / 181 TTJ 798 (Bang.) 1361 428
(Trib.)
Pahilajrai Jaikishin; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 1187 / 179 TTJ 148 (Mum.) 373 129
(Trib.) 804 244
Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust v. ITO (2016) 241 Taxman 84 (Guj.)(HC) 1776 577
Pala Marketing Co-op. Society Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 304 / (2017) 291 2141 714
CTR 116 (Ker.)(HC)
Palki Investment & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 139 DTR 57 / 288 2423 822
CTR 473 / 71 taxmann.com 322 (Bom.)(HC) 2425 823
Pallav Sheth; ACIT v. * (2016) 241 Taxman 13 (SC) 2094 696
Pankaj Investments v. ACIT (2016) 46 ITR 345 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2406 814
Pankaj Nagalia; CIT v. * (2016) 138 DTR 169 / 287 CTR 233 / 241 Taxman 1327 416
108 (Uttarakhand)(HC)
Param Hans Swami Uma Bharti Mission v. CCIT (2016) 238 Taxman 538 / 222 79
138 DTR 102 / 287 CTR 350 / (2017) 391 ITR 131 (P&H)(HC)
Paras Buildtech India P. Ltd. v. (2016) 382 ITR 630 / (2017) 145 DTR 313 1685 547
/ 291 CTR 549 / 80 taxmann.com 335 (Delhi)(HC)
Paras Rice Mills v. UOI (2016) 236 Taxman 21 (P&H)(HC) 2524 858
Paras S. Savla v. ACIT (2016) 389 ITR 336 / 244 Taxman 17 (Guj.)(HC) 1983 655
Paras Shantilal Shah v. Dy. CIT (2016) 282 CTR 291 (Bom.)(HC) 1608 520
Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal; ACIT v. * (2016) 159 ITD 54 (Chd.)(Trib.) 376 130
580 185
1162 360
1200 371
Paresh Dhanji Chedda v. Dy. CIT (2016) 160 ITD 656 / (2017) 184 TTJ 132 2263 762
/ 149 DTR 124 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
Paresh Pritamlal Mehta v. ITO (Pune)(Trib.);www.itatonline.org 392 134
Parrys (Eastern) (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 264 / 238 Taxman 14 1254 390
(Bom.)(HC)
Parryware Roca (P) Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 175 TTJ 450 / 129 DTR 257 877 264
(Chennai)(Trib.) 1521 485
Parshwa Corporation and others v. Dy. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 266 / 178 TTJ 1913 630
394 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

lxxvi
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Partha Mitra v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 25/ (2017) 183 TTJ 330 / 145 DTR 99 2241 755
(TM)(Kol.)(Trib.)
Pasupati Nath Commercial (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 134 DTR 105 / 287 1799 586
CTR 28 (Delhi)(HC)
Patel Brothers v. DCIT (2016) 240 Taxman 487 (Guj.)(HC) 661 205
Pattambi Services Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 387 ITR 299 / 240 1622 525
Taxman 593 / 289 CTR 559 / 142 DTR 48 (Ker.)(HC)
Pavittar Singh v. CIT (2016) 282 CTR 285 (P&H)(HC) 1134 351
Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 667 (Kol.)(Trib.) 403 136
770 236
865 261
866 261
1531 490
2380 805
Pawar Patkar Construction (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 159 ITD 406 (Pune)(Trib.) 898 271
PBS Developers v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 27 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 736 227
Peass Industrial Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 289 CTR 139 / 72 1775 576
taxmann.com 302 (Guj.)(HC)
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 483 159
165 / 242 Taxman 173 (SC)
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 1543 495
130 (Cal.)(HC)
Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 216 / 282 CTR 160 1397 441
/ 69 taxman.com 180 (Bom.)(HC)
Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ADCIT (2016) 157 ITD 1 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1489 472
Peravoor Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham 1344 421
v. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 34 (Ker.)(HC)
Peri (India) (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 159 ITD 541 (Mum.)(Trib.) 482 159
Pfizer Corporation, Panama v. Dy. DIT (2016) 160 ITD 644 / 182 TTJ 902 2149 717
(2017) 145 DTR 234 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Pfizer Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 64 taxmann.com 465 / (2016) 175 TTJ 92 / 139 1472 466
DTR 81 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Pfizer Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2015) 64 taxmann.com 465 (2016) 175 TTJ 92 / 781 238
139 DTR 81 / (Mum.)(Trib.) 1522 485
PGS Exploration (Norway) AS v. Addl. DIT (2016) 383 ITR 178 / 239 178 60
Taxman 333 / (2017) 291 CTR 146 (Delhi)(HC) 949 286
Philips India Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 538 (Cal.)(HC) 2351 795

lxxvii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Pilani Investments & Industries Corporation Limited; CIT v. * (2016) 383 2429 824
ITR 635 / 238 Taxman 384 / 284 CTR 272 / 131 DTR 321 (Cal.)(HC)
Pine Tree Finserve Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 442 148
Pinebridge Investments Capital India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 566 729 225
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Pipelines India v. ACIT (2016) 238 Taxman 9 / 288 CTR 603 (Mad.)(HC) 1013 310
Piramal Fund Management (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 581 / 133 2101 698
DTR 250 / 286 CTR 175 (Bom.)(HC)
Pirmal Fund Management Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2108 702
Piu Ghosh v. Dy. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 322 / 73 taxmann.com 226 (Cal.)(HC) 829 251
Plant Lipids (P) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 811 (Cochin)(Trib.) 934 281
Pondicherry Chlorate Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 371 (Mad.)(HC) 1294 403
Pooja Forge Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 382 (Delhi)(HC) 1950 642
Power Soaps P. Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 45 ITR 250 (Chennai)(Trib.) 537 172
891 269
Pr.CIT v. M. Tech India P. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 31 / 238 Taxman 178 / 132 840 254
DTR 57 / 287 CTR 213 (Delhi)(HC)
Prabhu Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 462 (Mad.) 1286 399
(HC)
Pradeep Kar; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 121 (Karn.)(HC) 1938 638
Pradeep Khanna v. ACIT (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.org 361 125
Pradip Burman v. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 418/ 236 Taxman 606 / 129 DTR 2516 853
404 (Delhi)(HC)
Praful Chandaria v. ADDIT (2016) 161 ITD 153 / 181 TTJ 731 / 143 DTR 990 302
1 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Praful Chandaria v. ADIT (2016) 143 DTR 1 (Mum.)(Trib.) 994 303
Pragati Vanijya Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 48 ITR 77 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2400 812
Pragna R. Shah v. Dy. CIT (2016) 282 CTR 291 (Bom.)(HC) 1960 645
Prahlad Bhattacharya v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 708 / 71 taxmann.com 63 1138 352
(Cal.)(HC)
Prakash v. Phulvati (SC); www.itatonline.org 2570 883
Prakash V. Sanghavi; DCIT (Inv.) v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 176 (Karn.)(HC) 1597 515
Prakriya Pharmacem v. ITO (2016) 238 Taxman 185 (Guj.)(HC) 1808 590
Prahlad @Pratap S/o. Tanbaji Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 238 2572 886
Taxman 83 (Bom.)(HC)

lxxviii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Pramod H. Lele; ACIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 571 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1007 308
Pranay Towers; ITO v. * (2016) 52 ITR 258 (Delhi)(Trib.) 897 271
Prasad Construction and Co. v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 579 / (2017) 152 DTR 2216 746
72 (Patna)(HC)
Prasanna Radha Krishnan (Smt.) v. ITO (2016) 387 ITR 162 / 73 taxmann. 834 252
com 72 (Ker)(HC)
Prashant Chandra v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 88 / (2017) 292 CTR 481 (All.) 1581 510
(HC)
Prashant J. Agarwal; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 119 (Bom.)(HC) 205 72
Prashnath Project Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2226 749
Prayagraj Power Generation Co. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 909 / 139 DTR 66 20
161 / 180 TTJ 271 (Luck)(Trib.)
Preetam Singh Luthra v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 447 (2017) 291 CTR 595 / 77 460 153
taxmann.com 222 / 145 DTR 440 (SC)
Preetam Singh Luthra; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 408 / 289 CTR 476 (SC) 461 154
Prem Chand Shaw (Jaisal) v. ACIT (2016) 383 ITR 597 / 238 Taxman 423 1883 619
/ 286 CTR 252 / 135 DTR 172 (Cal.)(HC) 1818 593
Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF); CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 133 2187 735
(Bom.)(HC)
Presentation Social Service Centre v. DDIT (2016) 45 ITR 23 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 303 105
Primenet Global Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 48 ITR 451 (Delhi)(Trib.) 185 63
Principal Officer, Hill View Infrastructure (P) Ltd.CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 1684 547
451 (P&H)(HC)
Pritam Singh v. ITO (2016) 139 DTR 28/179 TTJ 776 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1166 361
Prithvi Associates v. ACIT (2016) 240 Taxman 621 (Guj)(HC) 660 205
Priti Paras Shah v. Dy. CIT (2016) 282 CTR 291 (Bom.)(HC) 1960 645
Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 210 / 237 Taxman 2085 693
1 / 135 DTR 163/ 286 CTR 210 (Guj.)(HC)
Priya Desh Gupta v. DCIT (2016) 385 ITR 452 / 240 Taxman 285 / (2017) 1790 583
146 DTR 149 (Delhi)(HC)
Project Director, National Highways Authority of India; ITO v. * (2016) 158 2093 696
ITD 994 / 181 TTJ 113/ 140 DTR 286 (Nag.)(Trib.)
Project Director, NHAI; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 159 ITD 367 (Visakh.)(Trib.) 2014 665
Prolific Consultancy Services (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 296 / (2017) 2265 763
183 TTJ 801 / 151 DTR 107 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Promain Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 25 (Delhi)(HC) 2259 761

lxxix
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Promy Kuriakose; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 597 / (2017) 148 DTR 287 / 293 1642 533
CTR 440 (Ker.)(HC) 1920 632
1195 370
Prothious Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 46 ITR 438 (Mum.) 1839 604
(Trib.)
Prudent Finance P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 389 ITR 488/ 75 taxmann.com 110 1720 558
(Guj.)(HC)
Puneet Bhagat v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 353 (SMC)(Delhi)(Trib.) 41 12
Punjab Cricket Association v. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 227 (Chd.)(Trib.) 325 111
Punjab National Bank v. JCIT (TDS) (2016) 48 ITR 8 (Chd.)(Trib.) 2510 851
Punjab State Co-op Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 1337 419
389 ITR 607 (P&H) (HC) 1336 418
1338 419
Punjab State Co-operative Federation of House Building Societies Ltd. v. 1339 419
CIT (2016) 76 taxmann.com 98 (P& H)(HC)
Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 364 126
238 Taxman 207 (P&H)(HC)
Punjabi Co-op House Building Society v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 116 (P&H) 969 293
(HC)
Purewal & Associates Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 131 DTR 63 / 286 CTR 297 / 1280 398
243 Taxman 392 (HP) (HC)
Purewal and Associates Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 392 / 286 CTR 1276 396
297 (HP)(HC)
Purse Holdings India P. Ltd. v. ADDIT(IT) (2016) 143 DTR 1 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1884 619
Pushpak Logistics (P.) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 471 (Rajkot)(Trib.) 2023 667
Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute for Liver, Renal and Digestive 306 106
Diseases; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 43 (Delhi)(HC)
PVP Ventures Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 387 ITR 716 / 72 taxmann.com 129 1770 575
(Mad.)(HC)
Q
Qpro Infotech Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 49 ITR 41 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2446 831
Qualcomm India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 130 DTR 1 / 175 TTJ 497 / 45 1499 475
ITR 370 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Quality Industries v. JCIT (2016) 161 ITD 217 / (2017) 183 TTJ 350 / 145 372 129
DTR 215 (Pune) (Trib.)
R
R K P Company v. ITO (Raipur)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 862 260

lxxx
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
R. B. Shreeram Durgaprasad v. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 189 / 137 DTR 332 2513 852
/ 287 CTR 228 (Bom.)(HC)
R. L. Kalathia and Co.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 180 / 237 Taxman 621 981 299
/ 139 DTR 189 (Guj.)(HC)
R. P. Import and Export Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 97 (Chd.)(Trib.) 2388 807
R. Sethuraman; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 581 (Mad.)(HC) 443 149
R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad v. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 189 / 137 DTR 332 1889 621
/ 287 CTR 228 (Bom.)(HC)
R.G. Gurjar v. ITO (2016) 387 ITR 696 / 240 Taxman 273 (Guj.)(HC) 1935 637
Rachana Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www. 2377 803
itatonline.org
Radhey Shyam Mittal v. Dy. CIT (2016) 175 TTJ 70 (UO)(SMC)(Jaipur) 2480 840
(Trib.)
Radiant Premises Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 426 143
Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 42 / 237 Taxman 501 164
126 / 282 CTR 272 / 129 DTR 1 (Delhi)(HC)
Rain Cements Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 243 Taxman 496 (AP&T)(HC) 1666 541
Rain Commodities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 1 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 592 188
790 240
942 283
2182 733
Raj Dhulari Bhasin v. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 573 (Delhi)(HC) 975 295
Raj Kumar Tewatia v. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 110 (P&H)(HC) 93 31
Raja Harpal Singh Inter College v. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 327 / 240 Taxman 2506 849
123 / 288 CTR 435 / 138 DTR 289 (All.)(HC)
Rajabhai Lumbhabhai Hadiya; PCIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 528 (Guj.)(HC) 1045 322
Rajagopal (R.) Member-I, Appropriate Authority v. N. Sasikala (Smt.) (2015) 2408 816
64 taxmann.com 254 / (2016) 381 ITR 79 / 139 DTR 70 (Mad.)(HC)
Rajagopal (R.) Member-I, Appropriate Authority v. S. Ramayama (Smt.) 2408 816
(2015) 64 taxmann.com 254 (2016) 381 ITR 79 (Mad.)(HC)
Rajagopal (R.) Member-I, Appropriate Authority v. V. N. Sudhagaran and 2408 816
another. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 254 / (2016) 381 ITR 79 (Mad.)(HC)
Rajan Knit Fab. (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 131 DTR 308 / 284 CTR 293 1970 648
(P&H)(HC)
Rajan Pai (Dr.); DCIT v. * (2016) 48 ITR 170 / 143 DTR 20 / 180 TTJ 0714 1122 346
(Bang.)(Trib.)

lxxxi
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 241 Taxman 50 / 293 CTR 518 1244 386
(Mad.)(HC)
Rajaram and Ors v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 194 (Raj.)(HC) 1662 540
Rajaram and Ors v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 194 (Raj.)(HC) 2547 870
Rajaram Rajendra Bhandari (Ajmer Group) v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 259 1661 540
(Raj.)(HC)
Rajaratna Mills Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 64 taxmann.com 89 (Mad.)(HC) 2140 714
Rajashekhar Swaminathan Iyer v. Dy. CIT (2016) 160 ITD 638 (Mum.) 2148 717
(Trib.)
Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd.; CIT (TDS) v. * (2016) 385 ITR 427 2041 674
/ 141 DTR 249 (Raj.)(HC)
Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 267 (Raj.) 595 189
(HC) 650 203
651 203
Rajat Saurabh Chatterji v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 1870 613
Rajdeep & PMCC Infrastructure; CIT v. * (2016) 73 taxmann.com 255 71 22
(Bom.)(HC)
Rajeev B. Shah v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 964 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1095 336
Rajeev B. Shah v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 1101 338
Rajeev Chandrashekar; PCIT v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 216 (Karn.)(HC) 27 8
Rajeev Gupta; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 456 (All.)(HC) 1954 643
Rajendra Agarwal v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 1973 650
Rajendra Kumar Verma; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 430 / 243 Taxman 172 / 2172 728
135 DTR 244 / 286 CTR 343 (SC)
Rajeshwari Cotton Ginning & Pressing Industries v. ACIT (2016) 94 CCH 499 163
208 / 130 DTR 274 / 284 CTR 300 (Karn.)(HC)
Rajeshwari Sangeet Academy v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 33 (Amritsar)(Trib.) 1837 604
Rajkumari Chandak (Smt.) v. ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 312 (Mad.)(HC) 1968 647
Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 / 240 Taxman 306 2348 792
/ 287 CTR 512 / 136 DTR 345 (Cal.)(HC)
Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. ITO (2015) 153 ITD 101 / (2016) 2208 743
158 ITD 71(TM) (Luck)(Trib.)
Rakesh Tak v. ITO (Jai)(Trib); www.itatonline.org 872 263
Ram Kanwar Rana v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 431 (Delhi)(Trib.) 204 72
Rama Panels P. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 181 TTJ 698 (Jab.)(Trib.) 446 149
468 155

lxxxii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Raman Chopra. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 904 / 48 ITR 164 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2464 835
Raman Khera; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 33 / 288 CTR 381 / 76 taxmann. 1676 545
com 185 / 140 DTR 1 (Delhi)(HC) 2418 820
Ramanbhai B. Patel; CIT v. * (Guj.)(HC) www.itatonline.org 1654 537
Ramaniyam Homes P. Ltd; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 530/ 239 Taxman 486 477 157
/ 137 DTR 319 / 287 CTR 200 (Mad.)(HC)
Ramesh D. Murpana v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 1019 (Mum.)(Trib.) 723 224
1231 382
Ramesh Kumar Kochar v. ACIT (2016) 388 ITR 500 / 73 taxmann.com 96 2199 740
(Mad.)(HC)
Ramesh Steel; PCIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 437/ 290 CTR 93 (P&H)(HC) 670 208
Ramnath and Co.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 307 (Ker.)(HC) 1333 417
Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 175 TTJ 531 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1473 466
Ramshila Enterprises P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2016) 383 ITR 546 / 239 Taxman 17 2345 791
(Cal.)(HC) 2520 856
Ramswaroop v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 208 / 241 Taxman 21 / 290 CTR 520 / 1588 513
143 DTR 367 (Bom.)(HC)
Rana Polycot Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 567 (P&H)(HC) 504 165
Rana Sugar Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 316 (P&H)(HC) 2428 824
Ranglal Bagaria (HUF) v. ACIT (2016) 384 ITR 477 / 241 Taxman 72 / 1795 585
(2017) 292 CTR 100 (Cal.)(HC)
Ranjeet Singh v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 409 / 238 Taxman 522 (P&H)(HC) 1882 618
1813 591
2312 778
Rashid Exports Industries; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 293 / 66 Taxmann.Com 2323 782
38 (All.)(HC)
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 366 / 176 TTJ 747 2082 691
/ 132 DTR 1 (Visakha)(Trib.)
Ratilal Becharlal & Sons; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 71 / 138 DTR 316 / 1394 439
288 CTR 31 (Bom.)(HC) 1389 438
Rattan Brothers v. ACIT (2016) 160 ITD 365 (Amritsar)(Trib.) 730 225
852 257
Ravi M. Arabatti v. ITO (2016) Chamber’s Journal-April, P. 87 2467 836
Ravjibhai Nagarbhai Patel v. ITO (2016) 387 ITR 639 (Guj.)(HC) 1727 561
Ravjibhai Nagjibhai Thesia; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 358 / 76 taxmann.com 1039 319
76 / (2017) 150 DTR 166 (Guj.)(HC)

lxxxiii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 500 / 243 Taxman 360 / 139 435 146
DTR 265 / 288 CTR 121 (SC)
Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 179 TTJ 219 / 69 1445 456
taxmann.com 137 / 138 DTR 329 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1446 457
Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 173 TTJ 572 / 129 DTR 269 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2151 718
Raytheon Ebasco Overseas Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 158 ITD 200 / 178 TTJ 39 195 68
(UO) (Mum.)(Trib.)
Red Brick Realtors P. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2015) 38 ITR 749 / 70 SOT 592 850 256
(Chennai)(Trib.)
Refam Management Services P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 693 (Delhi) 1918 631
(HC)
Regen Infrastructure & Services (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT (2016) 384 ITR 407 / 238 1630 528
Taxman 530 / 141 DTR 20 / 289 CTR 220 (Mad.)(HC)
Regen Powertech (P.) Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 43 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1436 454
Regents of the University of California UCLA Anderson School of 157 51
Management Executive Education, USA, In re (2016) 243 Taxman 122
(AAR)
Reliance BPO Ltd. v. DDIT (2017) 149 DTR 17 / 183 TTJ 388 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2266 763
Reliance Communication Ltd. v. DDIT (2017) 149 DTR 17 / 183 TTJ 388 2266 763
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Reliance Communication Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 655 (Bom.)(HC) 2337 787
Reliance Industries Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 574 (Bom.)(HC) 1816 592
Reliance Industries Ltd.; DDIT v. * (2016) 159 ITD 208 / 180 TTJ 22 2060 681
(Mum.)(Trib.) 813 246
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 76 taxmann.com 257 / (2017) 1265 393
390 ITR 271 (Bom.)(HC)
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 76 taxmann.com 257 / (2017) 390 879 265
ITR 271 / 145 DTR 233 (Bom.)(HC) 1358 426
Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. DDIT (2017) 149 DTR 17 / 183 TTJ 388 (Mum.) 2266 763
(Trib.)
Remfry & Sagar v. JCIT (2016) 182 TTJ 744 / (2017) 162 ITD 324 (Delhi) 732 226
(Trib.)
Renu Sagar Power Col. Ltd v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 310 (All.)(HC) 48 14
Reuters India P Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 428 / 288 CTR 714 / 140 1385 436
DTR 436 (Bom.)(HC)
Rheinbraun Engineering Und Wasser GmbH v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 144 47
359 (Mum.)(Trib.)

lxxxiv
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Richa Dubey (Mrs.) v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 541 / 48 ITR 195 / 179 TTJ 78 2463 835
/ 137 DTR 65 (Mum)(Trib.)
Rick Lunsford Trade and Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 399 (Cal.) 1147 355
(HC)
Rifah Shoes (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 241 Taxman 345 (Mad.)(HC) 884 267
Rimjhim Ispat Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 152 (All.)(HC) 678 211
679 211
Rite Pack Industries P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 48 ITR 555 / (2017) 145 DTR 1160 360
41 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Ritika Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 434 (Cal.)(HC) 1966 647
Rittal India P. Ltd. (No.2); CIT (LTU) v. * (2016) 380 ITR 423 / 282 CTR 505 165
431 / 129 DTR 153 (Karn.)(HC)
Rivera Home Furnishing v. ACIT (2016) 237 Taxman 520 / 138 DTR 149 266 95
(Delhi)(HC)
RJD Impex (P) Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 502 (Guj.)(HC) 598 189
RNS Infrastructure Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 238 Taxman 416 / 135 DTR / 2167 725
(2017) 292 CTR 507 370 (Karn.)(HC)
Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2016) 175 TTJ 450 / 129 DTR 1521 485
257 (Chennai)(Trib.) 877 264
Rockland Hotels Ltd. v. ITSC (2016) 380 ITR 197 / 236 Taxman 160 / 282 2161 722
CTR 142 (Delhi)(HC)
Roger Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 639 / 238 Taxman 434 2430 825
(Delhi)(HC)
Roger Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 639 / 238 Taxman 434 / 1226 381
134 DTR 337 (Delhi)(HC) 675 209
Royal Bank of Scotland N.V v. DDIT (2016) 47 ITR 513 (Kol.)(Trib.) 526 170
750 232
Royal Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016)158 ITD 125 / 140 DTR 52 / 180 527 170
TTJ 521 (TM) (Chd.)(Trib.)
Royal Jordanian Airlines; DIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 465 / 236 Taxman 10 / 1820 595
129 DTR 364 / 287 CTR 407 (Delhi)(HC) 958 288
Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib); www.itatonline.org 1156 359
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 52 ITR 235 (Mum.) 99 32
(Trib.)
RPG Enterprises Ltd v. DCIT (2016) 386 ITR 401 / 240 Taxman 614 / 138 658 204
taxman 49 (Bom.)(HC) 480 158

lxxxv
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
RRJ Securities Ltd.; CIT v. * (2015) 62 taxmann.com 391 / (2016) 380 ITR 1923 633
612 / 282 CTR 321 (Delhi)(HC) 1924 633
RS Components & Controls Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 158 ITD 118 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1408 446
Ruchika Oswal (Ms); CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 453 / 133 DTR 15 / 284 CTR 1214 376
188 (FB)(P&H)(HC)
Ruchita Gir (Smt.); ITO v. * (2015) 70 SOT 486 / 41 ITR 634 (Hyd.)(Trib.) 1055 324
Rukmani Santhanam (Smt.) v. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 338 / 182 TTJ 388 1071 329
(Chennai)(Trib.) 1098 337
Rupam and Ors v. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 276 (MP)(HC) 1613 522
Rupam Impex; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 360 (Rajkot)(Trib.) 1941 639
Rusabh Diamonds v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 564 / 48 ITR 707 / 178 TTJ 425 1367 429
/ 135 DTR 121 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Rustagi Engineering Udyog P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 443 (Delhi)(HC) 1812 591
Rustom Homi Vakil v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 588 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1077 331
Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit; ACIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 561 837 253
/ 67 taxmann.com 283 / 137 DTR 383 / 287 CTR 649 (Karn.)(HC)
S
S. Baskar Mathuram v. the state of Tamilnadu (Mad.)(HC), www.itatonline. 2559 874
org
S. D. Public School; ITO v. * (2016) 157 ITD 521 (Chd.)(Trib.) 296 104
S. D. Vimalchand Jain v. ITO (2016) 45 ITR 628 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1068 328
S. Ganesh; CIT v. * (Bom)(HC); www.itatonline.org 1686 548
S. Goyanka Lines & Chemical Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 378 (SC) 1717 557
S. Jayalakshmi Ammal; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 449 / (2017) 390 ITR 1221 379
189 (Mad.)(HC)
S. Jayalakshmi Ammal; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 449 / (2017) 390 ITR 1609 520
189 (Mad.)(HC)
S. Narendrakumar & Co v. Dy. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 440 / 175 TTJ 113 / 1118 344
129 DTR 1 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. R. Thorat Milk Products (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 255 (Pune) 724 224
(Trib.)
S. S. Jyothi Prakash v. ACIT (2016) 240 Taxman 741 (Karn.)(HC) 1193 369
S.J.A Alumi Association v. CIT (2016) 47 ITR 274 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1262 393
S.R. Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 156 ITD 384 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1945 640
S.R.M. Agro Foods; DCIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mum.)(Trib.) 815 247

lxxxvi
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
S.S. Food Industries; PCIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 388 (P &H)(HC) 2434 827
Sabharwal Apartments Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 547 (Delhi)(HC) 1833 602
Sabharwal Properties Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 547 (Delhi) 1833 602
(HC)
Sabic Research & Technology (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 327 (Ahd.) 1869 613
(Trib.)
Sadanand B. Sule.; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 116 (Bom.)(HC) 965 291
Sadguru Land Finance; DCIT v. * (2016) 52 ITR 182 (Amritsar)(Trib.) 910 275
Safari Mercantile Private Limited v. ITAT (2016) 386 ITR 4 / 287 CTR 593 2256 760
/ 73 taxmann.com 287/ 139 DTR 89 (Bom.)(HC)
Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 702 / 137 DTR 89 (Karn.) 2431 825
(HC)
Sage Publications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(IT) (2016) 387 ITR 437 / 73 taxmann. 2173 729
com 85 (Delhi)(HC)
Sahana Dwellers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 78 / 180 TTJ 139 (Mum.) 2035 672
(Trib.)
Sahara Investment India Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 121 (All.)(HC) 73 23
Sahil Study Circle Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 182 (Delhi)(Trib.) 793 241
1626 526
Sai Televisions Limited v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 651 (Chennai)(Trib.) 2460 834
Sajani Jewels v. Dy. CIT (2016) 143 DTR 263 / 241 Taxman 383 (Guj.)(HC) 1772 575
Sakunthala Rangarajan (Smt.); CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 103 / 292 CTR 451 4 1
/ 74 taxmann.com 94 (Mad.)(HC)
Salasar Stock broking Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 47 ITR 616 (Kol.)(Trib.) 2488 843
Salasar Stock Broking Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 181 TTJ 526 (Kol.)(Trib.) 2486 842
Salcomp Manufacturing India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 35 1437 454
(Chennai)(Trib.) 1438 454
Sale Tax Tribunal Bar Association v. The State of Maharashtra (Bom.)(HC); 2573 887
www.itatonline.org
Salora International Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 580 / 240 Taxman 7 1020 313
(Delhi)(HC)
Sami Labs Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 81 / 241 Taxman 102 (Karn.)(HC) 653 203
Samiksha Mahajan (Mrs) v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 59 (Delhi)(Trib.) 432 145
429 144
1258 392
Samson Perinechery; CIT v. * (2016) 139 DTR 43 / 288 CTR 50 (Bom.)(HC) 2285 769

lxxxvii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Samurai Techno Trading P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 357 (Ker.)(HC) 2412 818
Samwon Precision Mould Mfg. (India) P. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 48 ITR 630 911 275
(Delhi)(Trib.) 1693 549
Samwon Precision Mould Mfg. (India) P. Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib.); www. 1702 552
itatonline.org
Sangam Theatre P. Ltd v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 23 / 137 DTR 281 (Delhi) 2153 718
(HC)
Sangeeth Textiles Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 218 (Mad.)(HC) 1295 403
Sanghavi Savla Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www. 2482 841
itatonline.org
Sangu Chakra Hotels P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 117 / 74 taxman.com 2179 732
76 / (2017) 150 DTR 259 (Mad.)(HC) 2287 770
490 161
Sanjay Jaiswal; DCIT v. * (2016) 158 ITD 397 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1890 621
Sanjeev Aggarwal v. Dy.CIT (2016) 159 ITD 302 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1646 534
Sanjeev Kumar v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 493 (P&H)(HC) 1146 354
Sanju Verma v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 837 / 182 TTJ 909 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1534 491
Sansera Engg. P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 349 (Karn.)(HC) 1554 498
Santosh R. Jain (Smt.) v. ITO (2016) 46 ITR 246 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1874 615
Santur Developers (P.) Ltd.; ITO v. * (2015) 70 SOT 475 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2058 680
Sanwar Mal Jangid v. ITO (2016) 178 TTJ 25 (UO)(Jodh)(Trib.) 1852 607
SAP Labs India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 705 / 179 TTJ 515 (Bang.) 2273 765
(Trib.)
Sapna Sanjay Raisoni v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 1 / 179 TTJ 34 (UO) (Pune) 900 272
(Trib.)
Sara Lee TTK Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 142 DTR 258 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1440 455
Sarala Kanwar v. ACIT (2016) 388 ITR 500 / 73 taxmann.com 96 (Mad.) 2199 740
(HC)
Saravana Developers; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 239 / 289 CTR 550 / 68 2333 786
taxmann.com 148 (Karn.)(HC)
Saraya Sugar Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 186 / 239 Taxman 499 / 1887 620
286 CTR 345(SC)
Sarika Jain (Smt.) v. ITO (2016) 46 ITR 246 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1874 615
Sarita Aggarwal v. ITO (2016) 131 DTR 103 / (2017) 294 CTR 71 (Delhi) 1155 358
(HC)

lxxxviii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Sartaj Singh v. PCIT (2016) 48 ITR 604 / 179 TTJ 17 (UO)(Asr.)(Trib.) 2363 798
2358 796
SAS Hotels and Enterprises Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 324 (Mad.)(HC) 1293 402
Satbir Nijjer v. CIT(A) (2016) 383 ITR 71 / 139 DTR 138 / 288 CTR 96 1936 637
(P&H)(HC)
Satbir Nijjer v. CIT(A) (2016) 383 ITR 71 / 288 CTR 96 / 139 DTR 138 2109 702
(P&H)(HC)
Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 177 TTJ 249 / 133 1461 463
DTR 153 / 66 taxmann.com 247 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Satish B. Kaushik v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 739 (Mum.)(Trib.) 106 34
Satish B. Kaushik v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 739 (Mum.)(Trib.) 601 190
606 191
Satish Bala Malhotra (Smt.) CIT v. * (2016) 143 DTR 321 (P&H)(HC) 1124 347
Satish Bala Malhotra (Smt.); CIT v. * (No.1) (2016) 387 ITR 403 (P&H)(HC) 567 182
1680 546
Satish Kumar Goyal v. JCIT (2016) 159 ITD 393 (Agra)(Trib.) 1164 360
Satish Kumar Keshri; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 447 (Patna)(HC) 2334 787
Satya Kant Khosla v. ITO (2015) 174 TTJ 825 / 63 taxmann.com 293 / 411 139
(2016) 129 DTR 19 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 189 / 236 Taxman 199 / 116 37
282 CTR 41 / 129 DTR 14 (AAR)
Satyam Computer Services Ltd., In re (2016) 380 ITR 189 / 236 Taxman 2062 682
199 / 282 CTR 41 (AAR)
Satyug Darshan Trust; ITO(E) v. * (2016) 156 ITD 524 (SMC) (Delhi)(Trib.) 1539 493
Saumya Construction P. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj.)(HC) 1894 623
2545 870
Saurasthra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 1887 620
186 / 239 Taxman 499 / 286 CTR 345 (SC)
Savvis Communication Corporation; Dy. DIT v. * (2016) 158 ITD 750 / 178 189 64
TTJ 116 / 134 DTR 140 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Saxo India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 176 TTJ 540 / 67 taxmann.com 155 1517 484
(Delhi)(Trib.) 1518 484
Saxo India (P.) Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 411 (Delhi)(HC) 1378 433
SBL (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 379 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 1330 416
1563 501
Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd. v. Dy. DIT (2016) 131 DTR 58 / 1474 467
176 TTj 30 (Pune)(Trib.)

lxxxix
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Schmetz India P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 140 (Bom.)(HC) 1296 403
Seema Singh Beniwal v. Dy. CIT (2016) 45 ITR 664 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 1106 339
1105 339
Sella Synergy India P. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 388 ITR 539 / 290 CTR 154 / 76 1765 573
taxmann.com 93 / 142 DTR 33 (Mad.)(HC)
Semi-Conductor Laboratory, Deptt. of Space, Govt. of India; DCIT v. * 290 102
(2016) 161 ITD 584 (Chd.)(Trib.)
Senate v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 315 (Bang.(Trib.) 584 186
Sengunthar Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. CCIT (2016) 47 ITR 227 81
107 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Servall Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 161 ITD 457 / 52 ITR 700 218
252 (Chennai)(Trib.) 478 158
845 255
Servall Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 52 ITR 252 / 161 ITD 703 219
457 (Chennai) (Trib.) 808 245
Sesa Goa & Co Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 303 / 131 DTR 217 / 284 CTR 1980 654
1 / 66 taxmann. com 93 (FB) (Bom.)(HC)
Sesa Resources Ltd.; DCIT v. * (Panji)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 869 262
Sesa Resoureces Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 136 DTR 169 / 287 CTR 89 (Bom.) 838 253
(HC)
Settlement Commission; PCIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 660/ 65 taxmann.com 2166 724
309 (Guj.)(HC)
Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 280 / (2017) 244 Taxman 1627 527
206 (Delhi)(HC)
Shakuntala Devi (Mrs.); CIT v. * (Decd.) (2016) 389 ITR 366 / 75 taxmann. 1069 329
com 222 (Karn.)(HC)
Shalibhadra Developers v. Secretary & Ors. (2016) 143 DTR 1 / (2017) 291 2159 722
CTR 87 / 245 Taxman 160 (Guj.)(HC)
Shalini Seekond (Mrs.) v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 905 / 180 TTJ 1 (Mum.) 126 40
(Trib.)
Sham Sunder Khanna v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 461 (P&H)(HC) 465 155
Shangkalpam Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 193 (Chennai) 2114 704
(Trib.)
Shantai Exim Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 178 TTJ 451 / 136 DTR 313 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 2361 797
Shanti Buildcon v. Secretary & Ors. (2016) 143 DTR 1 / (2017) 291 CTR 2159 722
87 / 245 Taxman 160 (Guj.)(HC)
Shanti Enterprise; ITO v. * (2016) 240 taxman 698 (Guj.)(HC) 1145 354

xc
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Shanubhai M. Patel; PCIT v. * (2016) 73 taxmnn.com 138 (Guj.)(HC) 1040 320
Sharadha Terry Products Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 180 TTJ 284 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1016 312
Sharda Sinha; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 111 (Delhi)(HC) 54 16
Sharma and Gangadhar Build and Colonziers P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 1139 352
527 (P&H)(HC)
Sharon Nayak (Mrs.) v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 143 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1121 346
1979 652
Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 1 / 243 Taxman 552 177
47 / 289 CTR 97 / 141 DTR 161 (SC) 561 180
Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 14 / 240 Taxman 1650 535
348 / 290 CTR 684 (Cal.)(HC) 3 1
SHCIL Services Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 1006 / 181 TTJ 408 (Mum.) 890 269
(Trib.) 2029 669
Shell Global Solutions International BV v. DDIT (IT) (2016) 182 TTJ 830 / 1407 446
(2017) 162 ITD 193 (Ahd) (Trib.)
Shell Global Solutions International BV v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 24 / 175 196 68
TTJ 286 / 129 DTR 217 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
Sheo Kumar Mishra v. Dy. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 424 / 134 DTR 376 / 287 2234 752
CTR 75 (Cal.)(HC)
Sheo Murti Singh (Dr.) v. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 174 / 236 Taxman 405 (All.) 1879 617
(HC)
Sherwood Diocesan College Society; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 634 2293 771
(Uttarakhand)(HC) 2294 772
Shibu Soren v. CIT (2016) 239 Taxman 512 (SC) 1949 642
Shimbhu Mehra; CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 561 (All.)(HC) 1046 322
Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.; DIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 114 / 238 Taxman 164 54
577 / 285 DTR 1 / 133 DTR 185 (Delhi)(HC)
Shinsei Investment I Ltd. In re (2016) 389 ITR 11 / 242 Taxman 293 / 290 1009 309
CTR 490 (AAR)
Shipping Torm India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2017) 145 DTR 152 / 183 TTJ 145 1841 605
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Shirpur Gold Refiner Ltd. v. ITAT (2017) 291 CTR 112 / 144 DTR 108 2255 760
(Bom.)(HC)
Shiv Dhoot Pearls & Investment Limited; CIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 104 1152 357
(Delhi)(HC)
Shiv Mahima Township (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 385 ITR 609 / 133 DTR 87 1810 591
/ 286 DTR 222 (Raj.)(HC)

xci
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Shiv Pratap Raghuvanshi v. ACIT (2016) 139 DTR 57 / 179 TTJ 761 1695 550
(Jaipur)(Trib.)
Shiv Shakti Rice Mills v. ACIT (2016) 389 ITR 255 (P&H)(HC) 1274 396
Shiv Transport & Travels v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 835 (Kol.)(Trib.) 31 9
Shiva Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit; ITO v. * (2016) 68 SOT 228 1347 422
(Panaji)(URO)(Trib.)
Shivam Gramodyog Sanstan v. CIT (2016) 282 CTR 96 / 129 DTR 18 (All.) 1802 588
(HC)
Shivanna, M. v. ACIT (2016) 142 DTR 319 (Karn.)(HC) 121 38
966 291
Shivender Singh v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 977 (Mum.)(Trib.) 725 224
Shivinder Singh Brar, Karta HUF v. CBDT (2016) 243 Taxman 176 / 290 1088 334
CTR 121 / 142 DTR 154 (P&H)(HC)
Shivshankar R. Sharma; DCIT v. * (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 1232 382
Shobha Jain (Smt.) v. CIT (2016) 243 Taxman 368 (All.)(HC) 1087 333
Shree Balaji Alloys; CIT v. * (2016) 138 DTR 36 / 287 CTR 459 (SC) 69 22
Shree Balaji Educational Trust v. CIT (2016) 47 ITR 595 (Delhi)(Trib.) 321 110
Shree Balaji Glass Manufacturing P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 128 / 26 8
241 Taxman 265 (Cal.)(HC)
Shree Balaji Products v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 598 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 519 168
Shree Hanuman Sugar and Industries Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 218 / 51 14
243 Taxman 417 (Cal.)(HC)
Shree Kamdar Education Trust v. ITO (2016) 243 Taxman 76 (Guj.)(HC) 346 119
Shree Parleshwar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 138 79 25
DTR 145 / 287 CTR 468 / 71 taxmann.com 179 (Bom.)(HC)
Shree Public Charitable Trust; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 222 (Karn.)(HC) 1259 392
Shree Sidhnath Enterprise v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 644 / 240 Taxman 631 1783 580
/ 293 CTR 535 (Guj.)(HC)
Shreekant Phumbhra; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 523 (Cal.)(HC) 356 123
927 280
Shreemati Devi v. CIT (All)(HC),; www.itatonline.org 1616 523
Shreyash Pratisthan; ACIT v. * (2016) 51 ITR 134 (Pune)(Trib.) 281 100
Shri Anand Rishi Jain Society; CCIT v. * (2016) 141 DTR 58 (Mad.)(HC) 218 78
Shri Balaji Prem Ashram & Nikhil Vidyalaya; ITO v. * (2016) 156 ITD 479 231 82
(Chd.)(Trib.)

xcii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Shri Basaveshwara Sahakari Bank.; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 411 (Karn.) 119 38
(HC) 1995 659
Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.; ITO v. * 1348 422
(2015) 68 SOT 240 (Panaji)(URO)(Trib.)
Shri Guru Ram Dass Ji Educational Trust v. CCIT (2016) 389 ITR 423 / 243 217 77
Taxman 94 /(2017) 147 DTR 108 / 293 CTR 144 (P&H)(HC)
Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 60 / 118 38
289 CTR 225 (Guj.)(HC)
Shri Siddeshwar Co-operative Bank Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 588 594 188
(Karn.)(HC)
Shri Siddeshwar Co-operative Bank Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 588 / 2002 661
240 Taxman 588 (Karn) (HC) 640 200
1996 659
122 39
1528 489
Shri Vishnu Eatables (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 385 / 243 1375 432
Taxman 446 / 289 CTR 337 (P&H)(HC) 2505 849
Shrimati Roma Sengupta v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 663 / 238 Taxman 682 / 83 26
288 CTR 234 / 139 DTR 26 (Cal.)(HC)
Shroff Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 49 ITR 20 (Mum.)(Trib.) 888 268
Shubhankar Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Senior Sub-Registrar (2016) 237 Taxman 2036 673
731 / 136 DTR 61 (Karn.)(HC)
Shushrutha Educational Trust; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 565 (Bang.)(Trib.) 226 81
1849 607
1978 652
Shyam Century Ferrous Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 477 (Cal.)(HC) 1555 498
Shyam Mandir Committee, Khatushyamji v. ACIT (2016) 138 DTR 367 / 1853 608
179 TTJ 752 (Jaipur)(Trib.)
Shyam Sel Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 492 / 72 taxmann.com 105 / 652 203
(2017) 148 DTR 167 / 293 CTR 316 (Cal.)(HC)
Shyam Sel Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 312 (Cal.)(HC) 1140 353
Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 161 ITD 1 / (2017) 183 TTJ 101 33
304 / 145 DTR 177 (TM)(Kol.)(Trib.)
Shyam Sundar Nirankari v. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 591 (P&H)(HC) 1579 509
Siddeshwar Co-operative Bank Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 588 / 240 76 24
Taxman 588 (Karn.)(HC)
Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme GmbH v. DIT (2016) 158 ITD 480 / 7 2
179 TTJ 71 (Mum.)(Trib.)

xciii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 144 DTR 370 67 21
/ (2017) 390 ITR 1 / 291 CTR 22 / 244 Taxman 188 (SC)
Siemoffshore Crewing AS v. ADIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 953 287
Silicon Graphics Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www. 744 229
itatonline.org
Silver Line; PCIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 455 / 283 CTR 148 / 65 taxmann. 1797 585
com 137 / 129 DTR 191 (Delhi)(HC) 2229 750
Sindagi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR / 240 76 24
Taxman 588 (Karn.)(HC) 640 200
1996 659
Sindhu Holdings Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 176 TTJ 41 (UO) (Delhi)(Trib.) 44 13
Sindhu Holdings Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 771 (Delhi)(Trib.) 37 11
Sindhu Realtors Pvt. Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 45 ITR 448 (Delhi)(Trib.) 44 13
40 12
587 187
Singara Nilgiri Plantation Co. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 238 Taxman 613 / 138 2201 741
DTR 139 (Mad.)(HC)
Singla Cables.; DCIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 617 (Amritsar)(Trib.) 94 31
Singlo (India) Tea Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 537 / 238 Taxman 666 / 286 544 175
CTR 242 / 135 DTR 31 (Cal.)(HC)
Siro Clinpharm Private Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 177 TTJ 609 / 134 DTR 1 1368 430
(Mum.)(Trib.)
SIS Live v. ACIT (2016) 175 TTJ 643 / 131 DTR 221 (Delhi)(Trib.) 763 234
2207 742
Sita Bai Khetan v. ITO (2016) 142 DTR 122 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 1062 326
Siyaram Metal Udyog (P) Ltd.; CIT(TDS) v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 578 / 289 2084 692
CTR 649 (Guj.) (HC)
Skill Infrastructure Ltd.; ITO v. * (2015) 70 SOT 186 (Mum.)(Trib.) 184 62
Skyline Great Hills; CIT v. * (2016) 238 Taxman 675 (Bom.)(HC) 29 9
441 148
SMAA Enterprises P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 175 / 138 DTR 373 / 977 297
288 CTR 103 (J&K)(HC)
Smart Value Product and Services Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 45 ITR 33 (Chd.) 1699 551
(Trib.)
SNDP Yogam v. ADIT (2016) 161 ITD 1 / (2017) 152 DTR 137 (Cochin) 316 109
(Trib.)

xciv
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Snowtex Investment Ltd.; ITO v. * (2015) 174 TTJ 875 (Kol.)(Trib.) 586 187
1249 388
Snowtex Investment Ltd.; ITO v. * (2015) 174 TTJ 875 / (2016) 129 DTR 391 134
203 (Kol.)(Trib.)
Societe Generale; DIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 182 (Bom.)(HC) 2232 751
Society For Participatory Research in Asia v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 887 / 180 284 100
TTJ 596 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Society for the Promotion of Education, adventure sport & Conservation 326 112
of Environment; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 6 / 133 DTR 1 / 284 CTR 207 /
238 Taxman 330 (SC)
Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 659 285 101
(Delhi)(Trib.)
Sodecia India P. Ltd v. DCIT (2016) 47 ITR 297 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1315 411
Softline Creations P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 636 (Delhi)(HC) 1133 350
Soham Trading & Investments (P.) Ltd. v. (2016) 161 ITD 761 (Mum.)(Trib.) 450 150
Soignee R. Kothari v. DCIT (2016) 386 ITR 466 / 285 CTR 230 / 134 DTR 1819 595
193 (Bom.)(HC)
Soignee R. Kothari v. Dy. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 466 / 285 CTR 230 / 134 2558 873
DTR 193 (Bom.)(HC)
Soma Textiles and Industries Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 45 ITR 147 / 175 TTJ 2459 834
1 / 129 DTR 12 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 423 / 290 CTR 30 800 243
/ 142 DTR 361 (Bom.)(HC) 2553 872
439 147
635 199
905 273
Soundarrajan Parthasarathy v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 21 (Chennai)(Trib.) 412 140
Southern Sea Foods Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 382 ITR 306 / 243 Taxman 231 / 1270 395
137 DTR 192 / 287 CTR 108 (SC)
Sovereign Commercial (P) Ltd.CIT v. * (2016) 134 DTR 105 / 287 CTR 28 1799 586
(Delhi)(HC)
Span Overseas Ltd. v. CIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2378 804
Special Land Acquisition Officer; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 398 (Guj.) 2053 679
(HC)
SPL Industries Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 47 ITR 204 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2461 834
Spporthi Sadan Convent v. CIT (2016) 239 Taxman 68 (Karn.)(HC) 2223 748
Spytech Buildcon v. ACIT (2016) 51 ITR 40 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 715 222

xcv
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 399 / 239 Taxman 229 309 107
/ 135 DTR 199 (Ker.)(HC)
Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 289 CTR 412 / (2017) 244 1548 496
Taxman 197 (Cal.)(HC)
Sri Chaitanya Educational Society v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 763 (Visakh.) 1939 639
Trib.)
Sri Chamundeshwari Sugar Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 47 ITR 291 (Bang.) 1697 551
(Trib.)
Sri Guru Har Rai ji Religious & Charitable Trust v. CIT (2016) 179 TTJ 46 341 118
(UO) (Chd.)(Trib.)
Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 564 / 285 CTR 190 1557 499
/ 133 DTR 102 (Karn.)(HC)
Sri Koundinya Educational Society v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 416 / 181 TTJ 348 120
677 (Visakha) (Trib.) 841 254
Sri Kuthethur Gururajachar Charities; DIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 292 327 113
(Karn.)(HC)
Sri Magunta Raghava Reddy Charitable Trust.; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 279 99
18 / (2017) 292 CTR 464 (Mad.)(HC)
Sri Ram Chandra Mission v. CIT (2016) 239 Taxman 170 / 289 CTR 439 1634 529
(Delhi)(HC)
Sri Ram Samaj v. JDIT (E) (2016) 158 ITD 676 / 47 ITR 629 / 181 TTJ 837 293 103
(Chennai)(Trib.)
Sri Renganathar Industries (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 427 1283 398
(Mad.)(HC)
Sri Sai Padhuga Trust v. ITO(E) (2016) 45 ITR 633 (Chennai)(Trib.) 2391 808
Sri Scorpio Engineering P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 266 (Karn.)(HC) 831 251
Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy Temple v. CIT (E) (2016) 159 ITD 655 337 117
(Hyd.)(Trib.)
Sri Suru Bhaskar Rao v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 419 / 286 CTR 200 / 239 1128 348
Taxman 6 / 135 DTR 41 (Orissa)(HC)
Sri. Ponkumar Magnesite Mines Lorry Transport Operator Periyagollapatti; 2260 761
CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 410 (Mad.)(HC)
Srikrishan Agarwal v. Dy. CIT (2016) 48 ITR 548 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 2445 830
Srini Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 275 / 180 TTJ 742 1409 446
(Hyd.)(Trib.)
SSA Global Technologies (I) P. Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 49 ITR 73 (Mum.) 166 55
(Trib.)

xcvi
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
SSA’S Emerald Meadows; CIT v. * (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karn.)(HC) 2414 819
ST Microelectronics P. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 550 / 72 taxmann. 1653 537
com 203 / 137 DTR 352 / 287 CTR 324 (Delhi)(HC)
St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 624 / 240 Taxman 1898 624
168 / 137 DTR 340 / 287 CTR 187 (Ker.)(HC)
St. Joseph’s Convent Chandannagar Educational Society v. Jt. CIT (2016) 295 103
158 ITD 1022 (Kol.)(Trib.)
St. Jude Medical Inc v. Dy.CIT (2016) 156 ITD 387 (Mum.)(Trib.) 152 49
St. Peter’s Educational Society; CCIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 66 / 240 Taxman 213 76
392 / 287 CTR 132 / 137 DTR 37 (SC)
Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 286 CTR 222 / 134 DTR 273 406 137
(SC)
Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 453 / 238 Taxman 2529 861
87 / 284 CTR 210 /132 DTR 87 (SC)
State Bank of Hyderabad; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 499 (T&AP)(HC) 2258 761
State Bank of India v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 / 241 Taxman 163 / 290 2324 783
CTR 129 (Guj.)(HC)
State Bank of India v. DCIT (2016) 158 ITD 194 (Luck.)(Trib.) 1991 658
State Bank of PatialaCIT (TDS) v. * (2016) 386 ITR 533 (P&H)(HC) 2009 664
State Bank of Travancore v. CCIT (2016) 389 ITR 449 / 290 CTR 103 / 2142 714
(2017) 244 Taxman 222 (Ker.)(HC)
STCL Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 2 (Karn.)(HC) 1704 553
Stefon Constructions (P.) Ltd v. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 615 (Mum.)(Trib.) 540 173
Stempeutics Research (P.) Ltd. v. (2016) 161 ITD 677 (Bang.)(Trib.) 179 61
Steria (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 390 / 241 Taxman 268 / 288 CTR 2054 679
694 / 140 DTR 64 (Delhi)(HC)
Sterling Oil Resources (P) Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 137 DTR 308 / (2016) 179 1443 456
TTJ 298 (Mum.) (Trib.)
Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 456 / 178 TTJ 188 1109 341
(Kol.)(Trib.) 2354 796
Stock Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 620 / 178 TTJ 265 / 135 758 233
DTR 41 (Mum)(Trib.) 757 233
Stone India Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) (2016) 385 ITR 542 (Cal.)(HC) 1553 498
Subex Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 938 / 182 TTJ 846 (Bang.)(Trib.) 113 36
558 179
Subhash Chander Goel v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 808 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1218 378
1236 383

xcvii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Subhash Chander Goel v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 808 / 177 TTJ 353 / 137 1858 609
DTR 22 (Chd.)(Trib.)
Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 592 / 240 82 26
Taxman 514 / 287 CTR 147 (Karn.)(HC) 2343 790
Subhotosh Majumdar; DDIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 708 / 176 TTJ 600 / 142 194 67
DTR 285 (Kol.)(Trib.)
Subhra Agrawal (Mrs) v. DCIT (2016) 47 ITR 283 (Agra)(Trib.) 1216 377
Subrat Roy; CIT v. * (2013) 219 Taxman 133 / (2014) 265 CTR 484 / (2016) 28 9
385 ITR 547 (All.)(HC)
Subrata Roy; CIT v. * (2013) 219 Taxman 133 / (2014) 265 CTR 481 / 574 183
(2016) 385 ITR 547 (All.)(HC) 1129 348
Subrata Roy; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 570 / 287 CTR 129 (SC) 2283 768
Sudershan Prasad Bagaria v. ACIT (2016) 384 ITR 477 / 241 Taxman 72 / 1795 585
(2017) 292 CTR 100 (Cal.)(HC)
Sudhir Budharaja; CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 50 (Delhi)(HC) 1153 357
Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) v. CIT (2016) 239 Taxman 264 (SC) 1136 351
Sudhir v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 208 / 241 Taxman 21 / 290 CTR 520 / 143 1588 513
DTR 367 (Bom.)(HC)
Sudip Roy; ITO v. * (2016) 161 ITD 709 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1023 314
Suguna Charitable Trust v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 838 (Chennai)(Trib.) 286 101
516 167
Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta (2016) IIAD (Delhi) 312 / 226 (2016) DLT 2571 884
647 (Delhi)(HC); www.itatonline.org
Sujaysingh P. Bobade (HUF) v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 125 / 140 DTR 132 / 2370 801
180 TTJ 631 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Sulzer India Ltd.; CIT v. * (2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bom.)(HC) 906 273
Suman Dhamija; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 343 (Delhi)(HC) 1017 312
Sumathi Gedupudi (Smt.) v. Add. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 419 / 177 TTJ 660 2381 805
/ 133 DTR 188 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
Sumit Passi v. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 46 / 240 Taxman 82 / 139 DTR 224 1784 580
(P&H)(HC)
Sumitomo Corporation India P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 611 / 242 1379 434
Taxman 260 / 288 CTR 1 (Delhi)(HC)
Sumitomo Corporation; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 75 / 137 DTR 94 / 287 177 60
CTR 420 (Delhi)(HC)
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn.; DIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 378 (Bom.) 2122 707
(HC)

xcviii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation; Dy. DIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 164 / 1714 555
243 Taxman 514 /290 CTR 484 / 144 DTR 167 (SC)
Sun Life India Service P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 516 (P&H)(HC) 246 88
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 686 / 1278 397
(2017) 148 DTR 332 / 293 CTR 489 (Guj.)(HC)
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 241 Taxman 332 1746 567
(Guj.)(HC)
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 243 Taxman 299 (Guj.) 1761 572
(HC)
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 381 ITR 387 / 237 1742 566
Taxman 709 / 137 DTR 18 / 287 CTR 621 (Delhi)(HC)
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 686 / 1545 495
(2017) 148 DTR 332 / 293 CTR 489 (Guj.)(HC)
Sunaero Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 472 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1018 312
Sundaram Finance Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 155 (Mad.)(HC) 543 174
Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 240 Taxman 297 (SC) 2411 818
Sundaram Medical Foundation v. Dy. CIT (E) (2016) 45 ITR 500 (Chennai) 22 7
(Trib.) 304 105
Sundaram Medical Foundation v. Dy. CIT (E)-I (2016) 45 ITR 500 2197 739
(Chennai)(Trib.)
Sundaramoorthy (HUF); CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 154 (Karn.)(HC) 1956 643
Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. CBDT (2016) 387 ITR 674 / 238 Taxman 2146 716
243 / 137 DTR 177 / 287 CTR 309 (Bom.)(HC)
Sunil Gavaskar v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 243 / 177 TTJ 500 / 134 DTR 113 1352 423
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Sunil Gavaskar v. ITO (IT) (2016) 47 ITR 243 / 177 TTJ 500 / 134 DTR 1855 608
113 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2540 868
Sunil Kumar Gupta v. ACIT (2016) 389 ITR 38 / 243 Taxman 65 (P&H)(HC) 420 142
Sunil Kumar Saha v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 1 (Kol)(Trib) 424 142
1119 344
423 142
1085 333
Sunil Vishwambharnath Tiwari; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 630 / 290 CTR 1322 413
234 / 143 DTR 94 (Bom.)(HC)
Sunila Sharma; CIT v. * (2016) 380 ITR 462 (P&H)(HC) 2437 828
Sunlife Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 16 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1942 640

xcix
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Sunny Sounds P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 443 / 237 Taxman 295 / 2399 812
283 CTR 158 / 130 DTR 265 (Bom.)(HC)
Sunquest Information Systems (India) (P.) Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 160 ITD 1448 457
49 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1449 458
Sunshield Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 452 / 175 TTJ 129 / 1709 554
129 DTR 113 (Mum.)(Trib.) 534 172
Super Auto Forge (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 156 ITD 467 (Chennai)(Trib.) 393 134
1240 384
Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 176 TTJ 563 / 132 DTR 48 (Delhi) 1933 636
(Trib.)
Superline Construction Pvt. Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) BCAJ-January-P. 1186 367
18(Mum.)(Trib.)
Superman Knitters (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 494 / 69 taxmann. 2335 787
com 181 (P&H)(HC)
Surat National Co-operative Bank Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 51 ITR 136 (Ahd.) 716 222
(Trib.)
Surat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 373 / 181 TTJ 181 / 1561 500
(2017) 148 DTR 297 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
Surbhi Goel (Mrs.); CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 575 / 243 Taxman 539 / 290 1958 644
CTR 14 (Raj.)(HC)
Surender Paul v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 58 (P&H)(HC) 2413 818
Suresh Babulal Shah (HUF) v. DCIT (2016) 161 ITD 514 (Pune)(Trib.) 992 303
Suresh Jain; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 460 (Karn.)(HC) 1191 368
Suresh Kumar Goyal v. CIT (2016) 139 DTR 362 / 73 taxmann.com 10 2519 856
(Delhi)(HC)
Suresh Kumar K. Tek v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 119 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1079 331
Suresh Kumar Kochar v. ACIT (2016) 388 ITR 500 / 73 taxmann.com 96 2199 740
(Mad.)(HC)
Suresh M. Bajaj v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1877 616
Suresh Sharma v. ACIT (2016) 383 ITR 44 / 68 taxmann.com 163 (Karn.) 2120 706
(HC)
Suresh v. Addl. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 1 / 139 DTR 213 / 288 CTR 203 1789 583
(Bom.)(HC)
Surjeet Bahadur Khurania v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 211 / 75 taxmann.com 1951 642
229 / (2017) 292 CTR 491 (P&H)(HC)
Surya Merchants Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 105 / 290 CTR 168 / 72 1308 408
taxmann.com 16 (All.)(HC)

c
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Sushil Kumar Co. v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 192 (Cal.)(HC) 78 24
Sushila Devi v. CIT (2017) 292 CTR 116 (Delhi)(HC) 1617 523
Suthanther Assumtha; DCIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 546 / 51 ITR 154 508 166
(Chennai)(Trib.)
Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya v. ACIT (2016) 130 DTR 49 / 175 TTJ 238 2473 838
(Kol.)(Trib.) 2474 839
Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 156 ITD 7 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 2064 683
SVE Engineers P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 11 / 243 Taxman 193 636 199
(Mad.)(HC)
SVP Builders (India) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 238 Taxman 653 (Delhi)(HC) 1150 356
Swami Dayanand Educational Trust v. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 564 (Delhi) 323 111
(Trib.)
Swastik Commercial (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 134 DTR 105 / 287 CTR 28 1799 586
(Delhi)(HC)
Swastik Industries; PCIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 510 (Guj.)(HC) 495 162
Swati Saurin Shah v. ITO (2016) 386 ITR 256 / 240 Taxman 758 (Guj.)(HC) 1787 581
Symphony Marketing Solutions India P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 457 207 73
/ (2017) 150 DTR 172 (Karn.)(HC)
Synbiotics Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 48 ITR 210 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1112 342
Synchem Chemicals (I) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 498 (Bom.)(HC) 2307 777
Syncom Formulation (I) Ltd.; DCIT v. * (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 796 242
Syngene International Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 542 (Bang.)(Trib.) 271 97
Synopsys International Ltd. v. DDIT (IT) (2016) 76 taxmann.com 18 (Karn) 162 53
(HC)
T
T. C. Vavachan v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 48 (Cochin)(Trib.) 11 3
T. K. Dhanashekar v. UOI (2016) 383 ITR 385 / 239 Taxman 283 / 286 1532 490
CTR 28 (Mad.)(HC)
T. Kurvilla; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 139 (Ker.)(HC) 830 251
T. Lakamshi Ladha and Co. v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 233 / 240 Taxman 49 / 662 205
286 CTR 494 (Bom.)(HC)
T. Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. v. CIT (No. 2) (2016) 386 ITR 245 / 242 Taxman 645 201
325 / 288 CTR 330 (Bom.)(HC) 663 206
T. Rajkumar v. UOI (2016) 383 ITR 385 / 239 Taxman 283 / 286 CTR 28 / 1532 490
134 DTR 225 (Mad.)(HC)
T. Shiva Kumar v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 329 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1076 330

ci
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
T.T. Siddarth v. DCIT (2016) 159 ITD 519 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1032 316
Taj TV Ltd.; ADDIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 339 / (2017) 184 TTJ 202 / 147 819 248
DTR 30 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Taj TV Ltd.; ADIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 339/ (2017) 184 TTJ 202 / 147 DTR 140 45
30 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Takshila Educational Society; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 131 DTR 332 / 284 CTR 1825 597
306 (Pat.)(HC)
Talbros Engineering Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 154 (P&H)(HC) 52 15
1142 353
1651 536
Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 160 ITD 465 (Bang.)(Trib.) 1366 429
Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bang.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1459 462
Talwalkar Bhalerao & Mate; ITO v. * (2016) 178 TTJ 1 (UO)(Pune)(Trib.) 2454 832
Tamasek Holdings Advisors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 177 TTJ 678 1462 463
/ 138 DTR 282 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. v. Chinnadurai 2007 663
(Mad.)(HC); www. itatonline.org
Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 241 74 23
Taxman 441 / 288 CTR 444 (Mad.)(HC) 626 197
Tanuj Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 420 (Kol.)(Trib.) 2385 806
Tapas Kr. Bandopadhyay v. Dy.CIT (2016) 159 ITD 309 / 180 TTJ 702 (Kol.) 123 39
(Trib.)
Tara Jewels Exports P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 404 / 129 DTR 410 / 1390 438
282 CTR 525 (Bom.)(HC)
Tara Singh v. ITO (2016) 387 ITR 587 (P&H)(HC) 1663 541
Taragauri T. Doshi v. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 343 (Mum.)(Trib.) 206 72
Tarsem Singla v. DCIT (2016) 385 ITR 138 (P&H)(HC) 1897 623
Tarujyot Investment Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 48 ITR 33 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 984 300
Tarus Shipping Services; CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 555 / 288 CTR 718 131 42
(Guj.)(HC)
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 130 DTR 90 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1834 602
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2015) 174 TTJ 570 / (2016) 878 265
46 ITR 394 (Mum.)(Trib.) 880 265
1524 486
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 394 / (2015) 256 92
174 TTJ 570 (Mum.)(Trib.)

cii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Tata Elxi Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 654 (Karn.)(HC) 244 88
2552 872
Tata Industries Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 51 ITR 101 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2441 829
Tata Metalics Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 48 ITR 272 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1558 499
Tata Metaliks Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 411 (Cal.)(HC) 1290 401
Tata Teleservice v. UOI (2016) 385 ITR 497 / 132 DTR 1 / 284 CTR 337 / 2075 689
238 Taxman 331 (Guj.)(HC)
Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 133 DTR 119 / 286 2271 764
CTR 336 (Bom.)(HC)
Tata Teleservices Limited v. CBDT (2016) 386 ITR 30 / 136 DTR 145 / 240 1640 532
Taxman 182 / 286 CTR 465 (Delhi)(HC)
Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. ACIT (2016)385 ITR 436 / 238 Taxman 625 / 285 2074 688
CTR 48 / 133 DTR 57 (Delhi)(HC)
Tata Teleservices v. UOI (2016) 385 ITR 497 / 238 Taxman 331 / 284 CTR 2073 687
337 (Guj.)(HC)
TCL India Holding Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) / 241 Taxman 138 / 138 DTR 2315 780
319 / 288 CTR 34 (Bom.)(HC)
TCL India Holding Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 2314 779
Tech Books Electronics (P) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 176 TTJ 20 / 65 1519 484
taxmann.com 241 / 138 DTR 145 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Tech Books Electronics P. Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 176 TTJ 20 / 65 taxmann. 2251 758
com 241 / 138 DTR 145 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1506 478
Tech Mahindra Limited; CIT v. * (2016) 240 Taxman 143 / 141 DTR 202 2144 715
/ 289 CTR 454 (Bom.)(HC)
Technip Singapore Pte Ltd v. DIT (2016) 385 ITR 408 / 240 Taxman 373 / 176 60
137 DTR 113 / 289 CTR 421 (Delhi)(HC)
Technological Institute of Textile & Science v. DIT (2016) 158 ITD 808 21 7
(Kol.)(Trib.) 344 119
Techpac Holdings Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 474 / 238 Taxman 542 / 1809 590
286 CTR 412 / 135 DTR 322 (Bom.)(HC)
Teenlok Advisory Services (P.) Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 159 ITD 991 (Kol.) 444 149
(Trib.) 378 130
Telestar Investments P. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 248 (Karn.)(HC) 962 290
Textile Dye Chem Corporation; CIT v. * (2015) 237 Taxman 354 (Mad.)(HC) 687 213
Thakur Prasad Sao and Sons (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 448 (Cal.) 2426 823
(HC)

ciii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
The Regents of the University of California UCLA Anderson School of 198 69
Management Executive Education, USA, In re (2016) 387 ITR 398 / 243
Taxman 122 / 290 CTR 10 (AAR)
The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited; DCIT v. * (Mum.)(Trib); www. 371 129
itatonline.org 886 268
701 219
The Solution; CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 337 / 136 DTR 388 (Raj.)(HC) 892 270
The Tribune Trust v. CIT (2016) 76 taxmann.com 363 / (2017) 390 ITR 547 15 5
/ 291 CTR 352 / 145 DTR 350 (P&H)(HC)
Thomas Cook (India) Limited v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1482 470
Thukral Regal Shoes v. CIT (2016) 241 Taxman 361 / 290 CTR 596 / (2017) 563 180
391 ITR 119 (P&H)(HC)
Thyssen Krupp Industries India P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 413 / 129 1392 438
DTR 412 / 70 taxmann.com 329 (Bom.)(HC)
Thyssen Krupp Industries India P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 612 / 239 1386 436
Taxman 46 (Bom.)(HC)
Tibetan Children’s Village; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 126 (P&H)(HC) 2291 771
Tigrania Steel Corporation v. CIT (2016) 143 DTR 310 / (2017) 496 (Bom.) 2531 863
(HC)
Tiong Woon Contracting Pte Ltd., In re (2016) 387 ITR 350 / 243 Taxman 156 51
58 / 289 CTR 353 (AAR)
Tiong Woon Project and Contracting (Pte) Ltd. In, re (2016) 380 ITR 187 / 125 40
282 CTR 39 / 129 DTR 16 (AAR)
Tirupati Foam Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 493 (Guj.)(HC) 1740 565
Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 586 475 157
(Delhi)(Trib.) 788 240
789 240
1182 366
Toll Global Forwarding India (P.) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 38 / 237 1406 445
Taxman 326 / 283 CTR 346 / 130 DTR 401 (Delhi)(HC)
Tongani Tea Co. Ltd.; Dy.CIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 188 (Kol.)(Trib.) 1006 308
Topsgroup Electronic Systems v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1479 468
Topsgrup Electronic Systems Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 1123 / 48 ITR) 1411 447
753 / 178 TTJ 19 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Torque Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 46 (P&H)(HC) 2415 819
Torsa Machines Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 377 (Gauhati)(HC) 1326 415

civ
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Trans Asian Shipping service Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 637 / 138 1574 506
DTR 1 / 240 Taxman 669 / 287 CTR 113 (SC)
Trans Global PLC v. DIT (IT) (2016) 158 ITD 230 (Kol.)(Trib.) 132 42
Transcend MT Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 967 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1435 453
Transcend MT Services (P.) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 158 ITD 507 (Delhi) 1425 451
(Trib.)
Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 290 CTR 241 / (2017) 244 1747 567
Taxman 316 / 390 ITR 167 (Ker.)(HC)
Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd v. ACIT (2016) 290 CTR 241 / (2017) 390 1743 566
ITR 167 / 244 Taxman 316 (Ker.)(HC)
Travotel (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 878 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1084 333
Trendsetter Construction Pvt. Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 46 ITR 132 (Mum.) 1696 550
(Trib.)
Triad Resorts & Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. WTO (2016) 160 ITD 668 (Bang.)(Trib.) 2264 763
Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 45 ITR 636 1208 374
(Mum.)(Trib.) 1219 378
Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 45 ITR 636 / 1610 521
177 TTJ 306 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri; CIT v. * (2016) 45 ITR 636 / 177 TTJ 306 1658 538
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Trident Infotech Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 335 (P&H)(HC) 576 184
TRIL Infopark Ltd v. ITO (TDS) (2016) 385 ITR 465 / 288 CTR 188 / 138 2033 671
DTR 201 / 70 taxmann. com 44 (Mad.)(HC)
Trimurty Buildcon (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 178 TTJ 373 / 135 DTR 161 2455 833
/ 47 DTR 50 (Jaipur.)(Trib.)
Trimurty Buildcon P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 47 ITR 50 / 135 DTR 161 / 178 2462 835
TTJ 373 (Jaipur)(Trib.)
Trimurty Famrs & Retreats v. Dy. CIT (2016) 178 TTJ 373 / 135 DTR 161 2455 833
(Jaipur)(Trib.)
Trimurty Farms and Retreats v. DCIT (2016) 47 ITR 50 (Jaipur)(Trib.) 2462 835
Trio Elevators Company (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 1170 / 178 530 171
TTJ 258 / 134 DTR 201 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
Triple V Timber Sales Corpn; ITO v. * (2015) 70 SOT 811/40 ITR 204 1202 372
(Chd.)(Trib.)
Trishul Commercial (P) Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 134 DTR 105 / 287 CTR 28 1799 586
(Delhi)(HC)

cv
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Triumph International Finance India Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 464 518 168
(Mum.)(Trib.) 1127 347
Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 230 / 129 503 165
DTR 422 (Delhi)(HC)
Triune Project Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 145 DTR 190 / 291 CTR 268 (Delhi) 1037 318
(HC)
Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 385 ITR 497 / 132 DTR 1 / 284 2075 689
CTR 337 / 238 Taxman 331 (Guj.)(HC)
Tsurphu Labrang v. DIT (E) (2016) 159 ITD 848 / 182 TTJ 176 / (2017) 148 338 117
DTR 246 (Delhi)(Trib.)
TTK Healthcare Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 326 / 70 taxmann.com 263 479 158
(Mad.)(HC)
Tube Investments of India Ltd v. JCIT (2016) 240 Taxman 543 (Mad.)(HC) 597 189
555 178
801 243
Tulsi Food Products v. Dy. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 192 (All.)(HC) 1643 533
Tulsi Mall (Association of Person) v. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 586 (Guj.)(HC) 1580 510
Tulsidas Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. TRO (2016) 139 DTR 175 / 288 CTR 202 2188 736
(Bom.)(HC)
Tupperware India (P.) Ltd.; PCIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 494 / 284 CTR 1827 598
68 (Delhi)(HC)
Twin Earth Securities (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 764 / 177 TTJ 527 1035 317
/ 136 DTR 300 (Mum.)(Trib.)
U
U P Hotels Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 131 DTR 99 / 283 CTR 417 (All.)(HC) 1644 533
2319 781
U.G. Hospitals P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 520 (P&H)(HC) 481 158
570 182
U.P. Forest Corporation v. CIT (2015) 235 Taxman 270 / (2016) 131 DTR 2352 795
274 / 284 CTR 311 (All.)(HC)
U.P. Transformers (I) P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 66 / 137 DTR 273 / 287 1264 393
CTR 450 (All.)(HC)
UC Berkeley Center for Executive Education, USA, In re (2016) 242 158 51
Taxman 360 / 289 CTR 106 (AAR)
UC Berkeley Center for Executive Education, USA, In re (2016) 387 ITR 199 70
385 (AAR)
Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 15 (Mad.)(HC) 1299 404

cvi
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Ucal Machine Tools (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 1061 (Chennai)(Trib.) 731 225
1848 607
UCO Bank v. Dy. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 146 / 175 TTJ 607 / 130 DTR 113 1571 502
(Kol.)(Trib.)
UCO Bank v. Dy. CIT (2016) 49 ITR 34 (Kol.)(Trib.) 608 192
1560 500
374 129
Uday K. Pradhan v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 47 14
UE Trade Corporation India (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 130 DTR 345 / 176 TTJ 1498 474
252 (Delhi)(Trib.)
UFO Movies India Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 175 TTJ 633 / 131 DTR 81 (Delhi) 1475 467
(Trib.) 398 135
Uhde India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 45 ITR 177 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2481 841
Ujagar Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 1863 611
Umesh Goel (Smt.); CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 575 / 243 Taxman 539 / 290 1958 644
CTR 14 (Raj.)(HC)
UMT Investment Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 176 TTJ 53 / 136 DTR 39 (Kol.) 114 36
(Trib.)
Uni Deritend Limited v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 919 277
109 35
Union Bank of India v. ACIT (2016) 52 ITR 221 / (2017) 162 ITD 142 2150 718
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Unitech Holdings Ltd v. DCIT (2016) 240 Taxman 70 / 138 DTR 272 / 290 1786 581
CTR 201 (Delhi)(HC)
Unitech Ltd. and another v. UOI (2016) 381 ITR 456 / 133 DTR 2 / 237 2407 815
Taxman 361 / 285 CTR 162 (SC)
Unitech Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 381 ITR 456 / 237 Taxman 361 / 285 CTR 162 2409 817
/ 133 DTR 2 (SC)
United Breweries Limited v. DCIT (Karn.)(HC), www.itatonline.org 362 125
United Breweries Ltd.; CIT (TDS) v. * (2016) 387 ITR 150 / 293 CTR 500 2025 668
/ 80 taxmann.com 123 (T & AP)(HC)
United Healthcare India (P.) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 160 ITD 631 (Mum.) 2495 845
(Trib.)
United Spirits Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 386 ITR 718 / 242 Taxman 98 / 289 541 173
CTR 655 (SC)
UOI v. Central India Institute of Medical Sciences (2016) 243 Taxman 151 545 175
/ 389 ITR 4 / 144 DTR 370 / (2017) 291 CTR 19 (SC)

cvii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
UOI v. Subhash Kumar (2016) 237 Taxman 547 (P&H)(HC) 1576 508
Urvi Chirag Sheth v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 199 / 179 TTJ 245 / 136 DTR 97 32
345 / 51 ITR 491 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 1120 345
Usha Offset Printers (P.) Ltd. v. Bank of Maharashtra (2016) 238 Taxman 2112 703
363 (Bom.)(HC)
Utsav Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 639 / 181 TTJ 704 1031 316
(Jaipur)(Trib.)
Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, AIR 2016 SC 1169, 2016 (3) Bom CR 83 / (2016) 2569 882
286 CTR 15 / 134 DTR 145 (SC)
Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Ltd. v. PCIT (2016) 387 ITR 268 (All.) 2095 696
(HC)
Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation; ITO v. * (2016) 143 DTR 213 / 181 2077 690
TTJ 927 (Luck.)(Trib.)
Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 198 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1857 609
UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 71 / 176 TTJ 1004 307
315 / 131 DTR 352 (Mum.)(Trib.)
V
V. A. Haseeb and Co. (Firm) v. CCIT (2017) 152 DTR 306 (Mad.)(HC) 2518 855
V. M. Mathai v. CIT (2016) 242 Taxman 385 (Ker.)(HC) 2096 697
V. M. Reality P. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 225 (P&H)(HC) 1611 521
V. R. Usha (Mrs.) v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 402 (Chennai)(Trib.) 1099 337
V. R. Venkatachalam v. ACIT (2016) 48 ITR 13 (Chennai)(Trib.) 2357 796
V. Ram Prasad; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 479 (SC) 1598 516
V. Reginakantham v. CIT (2016) 242 Taxman 466 (Mad.)(HC) 1615 522
V. S. Dempo & Co Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 303 / 131 DTR 217 / 1980 654
284 CTR 1 / 238 Taxman 91 (FB) (Bom.)(HC)
V.S. Balasubramanyam v. ITO (2014) 47 taxmann.com 282 / (2017) 393 967 292
ITR 486 (Karn.)(HC)
V.S. Dempo Company Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 354 / 242 Taxman 434 1033 317
/ 290 CTR 401 / 144 DTR 1 (SC)
Vadodara District Co-op. Sugarcane Growners Union Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 1716 556
242 Taxman 110 (SC)
Vaipa Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 46 ITR 109 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1029 315
Vairams Kindergarten Society v. ITO (2015) 40 ITR 694 / (2016) 156 ITD 230 82
381 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Valley Extraction (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 976 (Chd.)(Trib.) 2405 814

cviii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Vandana Bhulchandani (Dr.); ITO v. * (2016) 140 DTR 25 (Mum.)(Trib.) 996 304
Vandana Bhulchandani (Dr.); ITO v. * (2016) 160 ITD 552 / 180 TTJ 505 1130 349
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Vaneet Sood v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 320 (Chand.)(Trib.) 1310 409
937 282
Vardhaman Estate Corporation; ACIT v. * (2016) 175 TTJ 15 (UO)(Mum.) 1700 552
(Trib.)
Vardhman Holdings Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 843 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1860 610
Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel v. ITO (2016) 282 CTR 75 (Guj.)(HC) 1800 586
Vasant J. Khetani v. JCIT (2016) 158 ITD 339 / 179 TTJ 475 / 138 DTR 940 282
265 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2020 667
Vatika Landbase Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 320 / 238 Taxman 448 1197 370
/ 136 DTR 262 (Delhi)(HC)
Vatsala Shenoy v. JCIT (2016) 389 ITR 519 / 243 Taxman 152 / 289 CTR 1036 318
457 / 142 DTR 201 (SC)
Ved Prakash Contractors v. CIT (2016) 175 TTJ 19 (UO) (Chd.)(Trib.) 2372 802
Veejay Marketing v. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 395 / 239 Taxman 392 / 243 1267 394
Taxman 232 (SC)
Veerakeralam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society; CIT v. * 1340 419
(2016) 388 ITR 492/ 241 Taxman 324 (Mad.)(HC)
Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 388 ITR 574 / 73 taxmann.com 1917 631
149 / (2017) 149 DTR 87 / 294 CTR 103 (Cal.)(HC)
Vegesina Kamala v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 457 (Visakha)(Trib.) 1104 339
2386 806
Vels Institute of Science, Technology & Advanced Studies; Dy. DIT (E) v. * 299 104
(2016) 157 ITD 237 / 130 DTR 331 / 175 TTJ 593 (Chennai)(Trib.) 539 173
Vels Institute of Science, Technology & Advanced Studies; Dy. DIT (E) v. *
(2016) 157 ITD 237 / 130 DTR 331 / 175 TTJ 593 (Chennai)(Trib.)
VeriSign Services India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 177 TTJ 372 / 132 DTR 1463 463
73 (Bang.)(Trib.)
Vernan Private Trust; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 211 / 137 DTR 223 / 178 1000 306
TTJ 550 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Vertex Customer Management Ltd.; Dy.CIT v. * (2016) 158 ITD 365 / 178 145 47
TTJ 580 (Delhi)(Trib.) 146 47
147 47
171 57
Vicky Rajesh Jhaveri v. DCIT (2016) 243 Taxman 573 / (2017) 148 DTR 1758 571
150 / 293 CTR 291 (Guj.)(HC)

cix
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Video Plaza v. ITO (2016) 385 ITR 404 (Cal.)(HC) 666 207
Vijay Agarwal v. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 542 (P& H)(HC) 1227 381
Vijay Aggarwal v. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 542 / 135 DTR 276 / 286 CTR 427 143
452 (P&H)(HC)
Vijay Aggarwal v. CIT (2016) 236 Taxman 542 / 286 CTR 452 (P & H)(HC) 1257 391
Vijay Gupta v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 643 / 238 Taxman 505 / 137 DTR 401 2395 810
(2017) 291 CTR 517 (Delhi)(HC)
Vijay Power Generators Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 1875 615
Vijay Shanti Educational Trust; PCIT v. * (2016) 243 Taxman 212 (Raj.) 485 160
(HC)
Vijay Singh kadam v. CCIT (2016) 384 ITR 69 (Delhi)(HC) 2155 719
Vijay Trading Co. v. ITO (2016) 388 ITR 377 (Guj.)(HC) 1192 369
Vijaya Mahantesh Vidyavardak Sangha; CIT v. * (2016) 236 Taxman 414 1260 392
(Karn.)(HC)
Vijayashanthi Builders Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 158 ITD 635 / 48 ITR 310 756 233
(Chennai) (Trib.) 585 186
472 156
Vikas Chimakurty v. Dy. CIT (2016) 159 ITD 413 (Mum.)(Trib.) 413 140
Vikas Coal Co.; CIT v. * (2016) 385 ITR 536 (Cal) (HC) 2224 748
Vikas Keshav Garud v. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 7 (Pune)(Trib.) 421 142
Vikram A. Pradhan; ITO v. * (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org 915 276
Vikram Jain and Sons, HUF v. ITO (2016) 46 ITR 246 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1874 615
Vikram Kaswan v. CIT (2016) 47 ITR 322 (Chd.)(Trib.) 2365 799
Vikrant Dutt Chaudhary v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 411 (P&H)(HC) 1190 368
Vikrant Mehra v. ITO (2016) 178 TTJ 53 (UO) / 48 ITR 382 (Asr.)(Trib.) 2362 797
Vikrant Puri; ACIT v. * (2016) 47 ITR 708 (Delhi)(Trib.) 1169 362
2189 736
Vimal Chand Surana; CIT v. * (2016) 137 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) 1271 395
Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd.; CIT v. * (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org 671 208
Vinod Chadha; ITO v. * (2016) 160 ITD 558 / 50 ITR 119 / (2017) 183 TTJ 1215 377
380 / 145 DTR 169 (Delhi)(Trib.)
Vinod R. Jadhav v. ITSC (2016) 144 DTR 112 / 290 CTR 674 (Bom.)(HC) 2163 723
Vipin Aggarwal; DCIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 367 (Chd.)(Trib.) 1204 372

cx
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Vipin Malik v. ACIT (2016) 45 ITR 589 (Delhi)(Trib.) 112 36
405 137
2252 758
Vipin Walia v. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 19 / 238 Taxman 1 / 141 DTR 36 1811 591
(Delhi)(HC)
Virage Logic International; Dy. DIT v. * (2016) 389 ITR 142 / 143 DTR 239 86
385 (Delhi)(HC)
Viraj Profiles Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 72 / 135 DTR 169 / 46 ITR 1570 502
626 / 177 TTJ 466 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Viraj Profiles Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 72 / 46 ITR 626 / 177 TTJ 389 133
466 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Virtusa (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 157 ITD 1160 / 139 DTR 72 / 179 1565 501
TTJ 527 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
Vishay Components India P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2015) 174 TTJ 354 / 128 268 96
DTR 178 / (2016) 45 ITR 471 (Pune)(Trib.) 1457 461
Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 384 ITR 505 / 130 DTR 87 1804 588
(Delhi)(HC)
Vishwachetan Foundation IBMR; ACIT (E) v. * (2016) 48 ITR 481 (Bang.) 513 167
(Trib.)
Vishwanath Acharya v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 1032 / 45 ITR 554 (Mum.) 419 141
(Trib.) 1180 365
1181 366
1701 552
Vishwanath Khanna v. CCIT (2016) 237 Taxman 502 (Delhi)(HC) 2523 858
Visvesaraya Technological University v. ACIT (2016) 389 ITR 10 / 242 212 75
Taxman 247 (SC)
Visvesvaraya Technological university v. ACIT (2016) 384 ITR 37 / 239 214 76
Taxman 395 / 286 CTR 1 / 134 DTR 215 (SC)
Vithal Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT (2016) 52 2356 796
ITR 21 / (2017) 185 TTJ 780 (Mum.)(Trib.)
Vitrag Metal Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 46 ITR 201 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1183 366
Vivek Engineering and Casting Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 383 ITR 480 (Cal.)(HC) 599 190
Vivek Prahladbhai Patel; PCIT v. * (2016) 237 Taxman 331 / 138 DTR 158 1199 371
(Guj.)(HC)
VLS Finance Ltd v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 407 / 142 DTR 318 / 289 CTR 656 1971 649
/ (2017) 81 taxmann.com 358 (SC)

cxi
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
VLS Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 1 / 286 CTR 146 / 134 DTR 305 1635 530
/ 239 Taxman 404 (SC) 1972 649
2546 870
VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 326 / 74 taxmann.com 33 2213 744
(P&H)(HC)
Vodafone Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 45 ITR 333 / 177 TTJ 105 / 134 2051 678
DTR 52 (Chennai)(Trib.)
Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 242 Taxman 352 / (2017) 151 1551 497
DTR 204 (Guj.)(HC)
Vodafone Essar Mobile Service Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 385 ITR 436 / 238 2074 688
Taxman 625 / 285 CTR 48 / 133 DTR 57 (Delhi)(HC)
Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 158 ITD 264 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2243 755
Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 169 / 284 CTR 441 2549 871
/ 69 taxmann.com 283 (Bom.)(HC)
Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 169 / 284 CTR 441 971 294
/ 69 taxmann.com 283 / 132 DTR 121 (Bom.)(HC)
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.; DDIT v. * (2016) 130 DTR 195 / 176 TTJ 777 238
430 (Delhi)(Trib.) 778 238
771 236
Vodafone South Ltd. v. CIT (TDS) (2015) 155 ITD 109 / 174 TTJ 246 / 2373 802
(2016) 131 DTR 92 (Chd.)(Trib.)
Vodafone South Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 142 DTR 19 / 241 Taxman 497 / 290 2037 673
Taxman 436 (Karn.)(HC)
Voltas Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 199 (2017) 183 TTJ 788 / (2017) 148 1559 500
DTR 84 (Mum.) (Trib.) 1048 322
W
Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 142 DTR 1 / 289 CTR 444 621 195
(Bom.)(HC)
Warangal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 56 853 257
(Hyd.)(Trib.)
Weatherguard Aircon (P) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT (2016) 130 DTR 133 / 176 TTJ 2509 850
141 (Mum.)(Trib.)
West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd.; CIT v. 2261 762
* (2016) 385 ITR 672 (Cal.)(HC)

cxii
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation v. ACIT 1659 539
(2016) 45 ITR 285 (Kol)(Trib.) 58 17
397 135
559 179
607 192
609 192
944 284
2130 710
2196 739
57 17
West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation; DCIT v. * 1659 539
(2016) 45 ITR 285 (Kol)(Trib.) 57 17
58 17
397 135
559 179
609 192
944 284
2130 710
2196 739
607 192
West Gujarat Expressway Ltd.; CIT v. * (No.2) (2016) 242 Taxman 127 / 487 160
(2017) 390 ITR 400 (Bom.)(HC)
Western Union Financial Services Inc; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 156 ITD 882 151 49
(Delhi)(Trib.)
Westlife Development Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2374 802
Whirlpool of India Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 381 ITR 154 / 237 Taxman 49 / 1400 443
283 CTR 273 / 129 DTR 169 (Delhi)(HC)
Windlass Steel Craft; ACIT v. * (2016) 175 TTJ 1 (UO)(Delhi)(Trib.) 589 187
Windlass Steel Craft; ACIT v. * (2016) 45 ITR 259 / 175 TTJ 1 (UO) (Delhi) 272 97
(Trib.) 588 187
Wipro GE Medical System Ltd.; CIT v. * (2016) 387 ITR 77 (Karn.)(HC) 240 86
642 200
643 201
644 201
Wipro Limited v. ITO (IT) (2016) 47 ITR 404 (Bang.)(Trib.) 2069 685
Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 179 / 236 Taxman 209 / 282 CTR 346 1354 425
/ 129 DTR 68 (Karn.)(HC)
Wipro Ltd. v. ITO (Bang.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org 2083 692

cxiii
Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Wipro Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 382 ITR 179 / 236 Taxman 209 / 282 CTR 680 211
346 (Karn.)(HC) 976 296
1655 538
2056 680
87 28
242 87
243 88
Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. v. ACIT(TDS) (2016) 46 ITR 259 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2080 691
Woodward Governor (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 65 (Delhi)(HC) 2494 845
1755 570
Wular Trust v. ADIT (WT(E) (2016) 134 DTR 359 (Delhi)(HC) 2537 866
X
Xpro India Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 93 (Kol.)(Trib.) 63 19
98 32
604 190
938 282
Y
Y. V. Ramana v. CIT (2016) 183 TTJ 337 / (2017) 145 DTR 202 (Vizag.) 2353 795
(Trib.)
Yama Finance Limited v. ITO (2016) 47 ITR 642 (Delhi)(Trib.) 382 131
Yamuna Estate P. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 45 ITR 517 (Mum.)(Trib.) 1185 367
1873 614
Yamuna Power and Infrastructure Ltd.; DCIT v. * (2016) 47 ITR 533 (Chd.) 1302 406
(Trib.)
Yamunaji Mandir Trust v. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 283 (Rajkot)(Trib.) 1263 393
Yash Creation; ITO v. * (2015) 70 SOT 130 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 507 166
Yash Jewellery (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 340 / 180 TTJ 464 1487 472
(Mum.)(Trib.)
Yash Raj Films (P.) Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 160 ITD 626 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2016 666
Yashovardhan Birla v. Dy. CIT (2016) 140 DTR 177 / 289 CTR 482 (Bom.) 2156 720
(HC)
Yashovardhan Sinha v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 540 (Patna)(Trib.) 1030 315
1083 332
Yes Bank Ltd v. ACIT (2016) 46 ITR 88 (Mum.)(Trib.) 2390 808
Yes Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 46 ITR 317 (Mum.)(Trib.) 400 136
401 136
473 156
560 179

cxiv
 Case Laws Index

Name Case Page

No. No.
Yes Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 68 SOT 291 (URO) / (2016) 46 ITR 121 402 136
(Mum.)(Trib.) 474 157
Yes Bank Ltd.; Dy. CIT v. * (2016) 46 ITR 317 (Mum.)(Trib.) 400 136
401 136
473 156
560 179
YKK India (P) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 139 DTR 353 (Delhi)(Trib.) 2202 741
Yogakshemam Loans Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 243 Taxman 102 (Ker.)(HC) 328 113
Yokogawa India Limited; CIT v. * (2017) 391 ITR 274 / 145 DTR 1 / 291 238 86
CTR 1 / 244 Taxman 273 (SC) 2556 872
Yum Restaurants (I) P. Ltd.; ITO v. * (2016) 380 ITR 637 / 131 DTR 23 / 1401 443
237 Taxman 652 / 283 CTR 129 (Delhi)(HC) 1256 391
Yunus Haji Ibrahim Fazalwala v. ITO (2016) 240 Taxman 198 (Guj.)(HC) 659 205
Z
Z Square Shopping Mall (P.) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 157 ITD 105 (Luck.) 1116 343
(Trib.)
Zazsons Exports Ltd.; ITO v. * (2015) 153 ITD 1 (2016) 158 ITD 1 (TM) 1175 364
(Luck)(Trib.)
Zealous Web Technologies; PCIT v. * (2016) 239 Taxman 224 (Guj.)(HC) 2341 789
Zodiac Developers P. Ltd v. PCIT (No. 2) (2016) 387 ITR 223 / 241 Taxman 1589 513
230 (Bom.)(HC)
ZTE Corporation v. ADIT (2016) 159 ITD 696 / 179 TTJ 424 (Delhi)(Trib.) 139 45
ZTE Corporation; Addl. DIT (IT) v. * (2016) 140 DTR 81 / 179 TTJ 424 137 44
(Delhi)(Trib.)
Zuari Estate Development & Investment Company (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (2016) 989 301
159 ITD 28 (Panaji)(Trib.)
Zuari Global Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 171 (Bom.)(HC) 2235 752
Zydus Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.; ACIT v. * (2016) 161 ITD 611 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 520 168
1306 407
914 276

cxv
Section wise Index

Section wise Index

Income-tax Act, 1961
Arrangement of Section
Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY
2. Definitions 1-20 1-65
3. Previous year 20 66
CHAPTER II
BASIS OF CHARGE
4 Charge of income-tax 21–38 67–117
5. Scope of total income 38-39 118-124
6. Residence in India 39-40 125-126
9. Income deemed to accrue or arise in India 40-70 127-200
CHAPTER III
INCOMES WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME
10. Incomes not included in total income 71-85 201-237
10A. Special provision in respect of newly established 85-93 238-260
undertakings in Free Trade Zone, etc.
10AA. Special provisions in respect of newly established 93-95 261-263
Units in Special Economic Zones
10B. Special provisions in respect of newly established 95-98 264-273
hundred per cent Export-Oriented Undertakings
11. Income from property held for charitable or 98-105 274-304
religious purposes
12. Income of trusts or institutions from 106 305
contributions
12A. Conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12 106-111 306-325
12AA. Procedure for registration 112-119 326-345
13. Section 11 not to apply in certain cases 119-122 346-351
13A. Special provision relating to incomes of political 122 352-353
parties
CHAPTER IV
COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME
Heads of income
14A. Expenditure incurred in relation to income not 123-137 354-405
includible in total income

cxvi
 Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

A – Salaries
17. “Salary”, “perquisite” and “profits in lieu of 137-140 406-413
salary” defined
C – Income from house property
22. Income from house property 140-141 414-419
23. Annual value how determined 142-143 420-426
24. Deductions from income from house property 143-145 427-432
D – Profits and gains of business or profession
28. Profits and gains of business or profession 145-158 433-479
30. Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance for 158-159 480-482
buildings
32. Depreciation 159-173 483-540
32A. Investment allowance 173-174 541-543
32AB. Investment deposit account 174-175 544
35. Expenditure on scientific research 175-176 545-549
35B. Export markets development allowances 176 550-551
35D. Amortisation of certain preliminary expenses 177-179 552-560
36. Other deductions 179-194 561-615
37. General 194-243 616-801
40. Amounts not deductible 243-267 802-883
40A. Expenses or payments not deductible in certain 267-273 884-905
circumstances
41. Profits chargeable to tax 273-276 906-916
43. Definitions of certain terms relevant to income 276-278 917-923
from profits and gains of business or profession
43A. Special provisions consequential to changes in 279 924
rate of exchange of currency
43B. Certain deductions to be only on actual payment 279-283 925-943
43D. Special provision in case of income of public 284 944
financial institutions, public companies etc.
44. Insurance business 284 945
44AD. Special provision for computing profits and gains 284-285 946-948
of business of civil construction, etc.

cxvii
Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

44BB. Special provision for computing profits and gains 285-288 949-957
in connection with the business of exploration,
etc., of mineral oils
44BBA. Special provision for computing profits and gains 288 958
of the business of operation of aircraft in the case
of non-residents
44C. Deduction of head office expenditure in the case 289 959
of nonresidents
E – Capital gains
45. Capital gains 289-312 960-1017
47. Transactions not regarded as transfer 312 1018
48. Mode of computation 313-315 1019-1030
49. Cost with reference to certain modes of 316 1031-1032
acquisition
50. Special provision for computation of capital gains 317 1033-1035
in case of depreciable assets
50B. Special provision for computation of capital gains 318-319 1036-1038
in case of slump sale
50C. Special provision for full value of consideration 319-328 1039-1068
in certain cases
54. Profit on sale of property used for residence 329-332 1069-1083
54EC Capital gains not to be charged on investment in 332-333 1084-1086
certain bonds
54F. Capital gains on transfer of certain capital assets 333-339 1087-1106
not to be charged in case of investment in
residential house
55. Meaning of “adjusted”, “cost of improvement” and 339-341 1107-1109
“cost of acquisition”
55A. Reference to Valuation Officer 342 1110-1113
F – Income from other sources
56. Income from other sources 342-346 1114-1123
57. Deductions 347 1124-1127
CHAPTER V
INCOME OF OTHER PERSONS, INCLUDED IN ASSESSEE’S TOTAL INCOME
64. Income of individual to include income of 348-349 1128-1130
spouse, minor child, etc.

cxviii
 Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

CHAPTER VI
AGGREGATION OF INCOME AND SET OFF OR CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS
Aggregation of income
68. Cash credits 350-367 1131-1189
69. Unexplained investments 368-376 1190-1213
69A. Unexplained money, etc. 376-378 1214-1220
69B. Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed 379-380 1221-1224
in books of account
69C. Unexplained expenditure, etc. 380-383 1225-1237
70. Set off of loss from one source against income 383-384 1238-1239
from another source under the same head of
income
71. Set off of loss from one head against income from 384 1240
another
72. Carry forward and set off of business losses 384 1241
72A. Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of 385 1242
accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation
allowance in amalgamation or demerger, etc.
73. Losses in speculation business 385-390 1243-1253
74. Losses under the head “Capital gains” 390 1254-1255
79. Carry forward and set off of losses in the case of 391 1256
certain companies
CHAPTER VI-A
DEDUCTIONS TO BE MADE IN COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME
B – Deductions in respect of certain payments
80C. Deduction in respect of life insurance premia, 391-392 1257-1258
deferred annuity, contributions to provident
fund, subscription to certain equity shares or
debentures, etc.
80G. Deduction in respect of donations to certain 392-393 1259-1263
funds, charitable institutions, etc.
C – Deductions in respect of certain incomes
80HH. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from 393 1264
newly established industrial undertakings or hotel
business in backward areas
80HHB. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from 393 1265
projects outside India

cxix
Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

80HHC. Deduction in respect of profits retained for export 394-398 1266-1280
business
80HHD. Deduction in respect of earnings in convertible 398 1281
foreign exchange
80-IA. Deduction in respect of profits and gains of new 398-407 1282-1305
industrial undertakings
80-IAB. Deduction in respect of profits and by an 407 1306
undertaking or enterprise engaged in development
of Special Economic Zone
80-IB. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from 408-415 1307-1325
certain industrial undertakings other than
infrastructure development undertakings
80-IC. Special provisions in respect of certain 415-417 1326-1331
undertakings or enterprises in certain special
category States
80M. Deductions in respect of certain incorporate 417 1332
dividends
80-O. Deduction in respect of royalties, etc., from 417-418 1333-1334
certain foreign enterprises
80P. Deduction in respect of income of co-operative 418-423 1335-1350
societies
80QQB. Deduction in respect of royalty income, etc. of 423 1351
authors of certain books other than test books.
80RR. Deduction in respect of professional income from 423 1352
foreign sources in certain cases
CHAPTER VIII
REBATES AND RELIEFS
CHAPTER IX
DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
90. Agreement with foreign countries or specified 424-426 1353-1357
territories
91. Countries with which no agreement exists 426 1358
CHAPTER X
SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO AVOIDANCE OF TAX
92. Computation of income from international 427 1359
transaction having regard to arm’s length price
92A. Meaning of associated enterprise 427-428 1360-1362

cxx
 Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

92B. Meaning of international transaction 428-430 1363-1370
92C. Computation of arm’s length price 431-488 1371-1527
92CA. Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer 488-489 1528-1529
94. Avoidance of tax by certain transactions in 490 1530-1531
securities
94A. Special measures in respect of transactions with 490 1532
persons located in notified jurisdictional area
CHAPTER XII
DETERMINATION OF TAX IN CERTAIN SPECIAL CASES
112. Tax on long-term capital gains 491 1533-1535
115A. Tax on dividends, royalty and technical service 492 1536
fees in the case of foreign companies
115BBC. Anonymous donations to be taxed in certain 492-493 1537-1539
cases
CHAPTER XII-B
SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN COMPANIES
115J. Special provisions relating to certain companies 494-495 1540-1543
115JA. Deemed income relating to certain companies 495-496 1544-1547
115JAA. Tax credit in respect of tax paid on deemed 496 1548-1549
dividend income relating to certain companies
115JB. Special provision for payment of tax by certain 497-502 1550-1571
companies
CHAPTER XII-D
SPECIAL PROVISION RELATING TO TAX ON DISTRIBUTED PROFITS OF
DOMESTIC COMPANIES
115O. Tax on distributed profits of domestic companies 503 1572
CHAPTER XII-F
SPECIAL PROVISION RELATING TO TAX ON INCOME RECEIVED FROM
VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANIES AND VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS
115U. Tax on income in certain cases 504 1573
CHAPTER XII-G
SPEACIAL PROVISION RELATING TO INCOME OF SHIPPING COMPANIES
115VB. Operating ships 505-506 1574
CHAPTER XII-H
INCOME-TAX ON FRINGE BENEFITS
A – Meaning of certain expressions

cxxi
Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

B– Basis of charge
115WA. Charge of fringe benefit tax 507 1575
CHAPTER XIII
INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES
A – Appointment and control
116. Income-tax authorities 508 1576
119. Instructions to subordinate authorities 508-510 1577-1580
B – Jurisdiction
124. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers 510 1581
127. Power to transfer cases 511-514 1582-1594
131. Powers regarding discovery, production of 515 1595-1597
evidence, etc.
C – Powers
132. Search and seizure 516-521 1598-1610
132A. Powers to requisition books of account, etc. 521-522 1611-1613
132B. Application of seized or requisitioned assets 522-524 1614-1620
133. Power to call for information 524-525 1621-1622
133A. Power of survey 525-526 1623-1626
CHAPTER XIV
PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT
139. Return of income 527-529 1627-1633
139A. Permanent Account Number 529 1634
142. Inquiry before assessment 530-531 1635-1637
143. Assessment 531-541 1638-1663
144. Best judgment assessment 541 1664
144C. Reference to dispute resolution panel 541-543 1665-1672
145. Method of accounting 543-552 1673-1702
145A. Method of accounting in certain cases 553-554 1703-1710
147. Income escaping assessment 554-617 1711-1878
148. Issue of notice where income has escaped 617 1879
assessment
149. Time limit for notice 617 1880
150. Provision for cases where assessment is in 618 1881
pursuance of an order on appeal etc.

cxxii
 Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

151. Sanction for issue of notice 618-619 1882-1885
152. Other provisions 619 1886
153. Time limit for completion of assessments and 620-621 1887-1890
reassessments
153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition 621-630 1891-1914
153C. Assessment of income of any other person 630-636 1915-1933
154. Rectification of mistake 637-641 1934-1948
CHAPTER XIV-B
SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT OF SEARCH CASES
158BB. Computation of undisclosed income as a result 641-642 1949
of search
158BC. Procedure for block assessment 642-648 1950-1969
158BD. Undisclosed income of any other person 648 1970
158BE. Time limit for completion of block assessment 649-650 1971-1973
158BFA. Levy of interest and penalty in certain cases 650 1974
CHAPTER XV
LIABILITY IN SPECIAL CASES
159. Legal representatives 651 1975-1976
163. Who may be regarded as agent 651-652 1977
164. Charge of tax share of beneficiaries unknown 652 1978
166. Direct assessment or recovery not barred 652 1979
H – Profits of non-residents from occasional shipping business
172. Shipping business of non-residents 653-655 1980-1982
M – Private companies
179. Liability of directors of private company in 655 1983
liquidation
CHAPTER XVII
COLLECTION AND RECOVERY OF TAX
A – General
B – Deduction at source
190. Deduction at source and advance payment 656 1984
191. Direct payment 656 1985
192. Salary 656-658 1986-1992
194A. Interest other than “Interest on securities” 658-664 1993-2009

cxxiii
Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

194C. Payments to contractors 664-668 2010-2024
194H. Commission or brokerage 668-669 2025-2030
194-I. Rent 669-672 2031-2035
194-IA Payment on transfer of certain immovable 672-673 2036
property other than agricultural land
194J. Fees for professional or technical services 673-678 2037-2051
194LA. Payment of compensation on acquisition of 678-679 2052-2053
certain immovable property
195. Other sums 679-682 2054-2062
196. Interest or dividend or other sums payable to 683 2063
Government, Reserve Bank or certain corporations
196C. Income from foreign currency bonds or shares of 683 2064
Indian company
197. Certificate for deduction at lower rate 684 2065-2066
199. Credit for tax deducted 684-685 2067-2068
200A. Processing of statements of tax deducted at 685 2069
source
201. Consequences of failure to deduct or pay 685-691 2070-2080
206AA Requirement to furnish Permanent account 691-692 2081-2083
number
BB – Collection at source
206C. Profits and gains from the business of trading in 692-696 2084-2093
alcoholic liquor, forest produce, scrap, etc.
D – Collection and recovery
220. When tax payable and when assessee deemed in 696-702 2094-2108
default
221. Penalty payable when tax in default 702-703 2109-2110
222. Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer 703-704 2111-2114
226. Other modes of recovery 704-705 2115-2117
F – Interest chargeable in certain cases
234A. Interest for defaults in furnishing return of 705-706 2118-2120
income
234B. Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax 707-709 2121-2129
234C. Interest for deferment of advance tax 709-710 2130
234E. Fee for default in furnishing statements 710-711 2131-2135

cxxiv
 Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

CHAPTER XIX
REFUNDS
237. Refunds 712-713 2136-2138
244. Interest on refund where no claim is needed 713 2139
244A. Interest on refunds 714-718 2140-2151
245. Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable 718 - 719 2152-2155
CHAPTER XIX-A
SETTLEMENT OF CASES
245C. Application for settlement of cases 720-722 2156-2161
245D. Procedure on receipt of an application under 723-726 2162-2169
section 245C
245F. Powers and procedure of Settlement Commission 727 2170
245H. Power of Settlement Commission to grant 727-728 2171
immunity from prosecution and penalty
245HA. Abatement of proceeding before Settlement 728 2172
Commission
CHAPTER XIX-B
ADVANCE RULINGS
245R. Procedure on receipt of application 729-731 2173-2177
CHAPTER XX
APPEALS AND REVISION
A – Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals)
246A. Appealable orders before Commissioner (Appeals) 732-733 2178-2182
248. Appeal by a person denying liability to deduct 734 2183
tax in certain cases
249. Form of appeal and limitation 734-735 2184-2186
250. Procedure in appeal 735-736 2187-2190
251. Powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) 737-739 2191-2198
B – Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal
253. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal 740-743 2199-2210
254. Orders of Appellate Tribunal 744-765 2211-2273
255. Procedure of Appellate Tribunal 765 2274-2275
C – Reference of case to the High Court
256. Reference to the High Court 765-766 2276-2278

cxxv
Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

CC – Appeals to High Court
260A. Appeal to High Court 767-781 2279-2321
E – Revision by the Commissioner
263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue 782-808 2322-2391
264. Revision of other orders 808-810 2392-2395
268A. Filing of appeal or application for reference by 811-812 2396-2401
income-tax authority
CHAPTER XX-B
REQUIREMENT AS TO MODE OF ACCEPTANCE, PAYMENT OR REPAYMENT IN
CERTAIN CASES TO COUNTERACT EVASION OF TAX
269SS. Mode of taking or accepting certain loans and 813-814 2402-2406
deposits
269T. Mode of repayment of certain loans or deposits 1042 3308
CHAPTER XX-C
PURCHASE BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN
CERTAIN CASES OF TRANSFER
269UA. Definitions 815 2407
269UC. Restrictions on transfer of immoveable property 815-816 2408
269UD. Order by appropriate authority for purchase by 816-817 2409-2410
Central Government of immovable property
CHAPTER XXI
PENALTIES IMPOSABLE
271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, 818-842 2411-2484
concealment of income, etc.
271AA. Penalty for failure to keep and maintain 842 2485
information and document in respect of
international transaction
271AAA. Penalty where search has been initiated 842-843 2486-2488
271B. Failure to get accounts audited 843-844 2489-2491
271C. Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source 844-847 2492-2500
271D. Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions 847-848 2501-2502
of section 269SS
271E. Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions 848 2503-2504
of section 269T
271G. Penalty for failure to furnish information or 849 2505
document under section 92D

cxxvi
 Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

272A. Penalty for failure to answer questions, sign 849-851 2506-2510
statements, furnish information, returns or
statements, allow inspections, etc.
273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases 851 2511
275. Bar of limitation for imposing penalties 851-852 2512-2514
CHAPTER XXII
OFFENCES AND PROSECUTIONS
276C. Wilful attempt to evade tax, etc. 853 2515
276D. Failure to produce accounts and documents 853 2516
277. False statement in verification, etc. 854-855 2517
279. Prosecution to be at instance of Principal Chief 855 2518
Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner
CHAPTER XXIII
MISCELLANEOUS
281. Certain transfers to be void 856 2519
282. Service of notice generally 856 2520-2521
292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain 857 2522
circumstances
293. Bar of suits in civil courts 857-258 2523-2524
Income-tax Rules. 1962 1112 3518
Gift-tax Act, 1958
6. Gifts includes certain transfer 859 2525
Interest-tax Act, 1974
2. Definition 860 2526-2528
10. Interest escaping assessment 860-861 2529
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1988
88. Settlement of tax payable 862 2530
95. Scheme not to apply in certain cases 862-863 2531
Securities Transaction Act – Finance Act, 2004
100. Collection and recovery of security transaction 864 2532
tax

cxxvii
Section wise Index

Sections Chapters Page Nos. Case Nos.

Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
2. Definitions – Assets 865-866 2533-2536
5. Exemption in respect of certain assets 866 2537
17. Wealth escaping assessment 866-867 2538

Finance Act, 1983 (1983) 142 ITR 41 (St.)

40. Revival of levy of wealth tax in the case of 867 2539
closely held companies
Interpretation of taxing statutes 868-872 2540-2556
Constitution of India 873 2557-2558
Allied Laws 874 2559
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 874-876 2560-2565
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 877-878 2566-2567
Customs Act, 1962 879-880 2568
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 881-884 2569-2571
Indian Penal Code, 1860 885-886 2572
Sales Tax Tribunal 887 2573
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators 888 2574
(Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976
Service Tax – Finance Act, 1994 889 2575
Service Tax 890 2576-2577
Circulars/Instructions/Orders/Press Notes/ 891-923
Releases/Articles/Opinions/ Guidelines –
Referencer

cxxviii
 Income-tax Act, 1961
CHAPTER 1
PRELIMINARY

S.2. Definitions

S. 2(1A) : Agricultural income – Growing of plants in nursery is an agricultural 1

activity as this involves all activities of agricultural farming. [S. 147, 148, 260A]
Dismissing the appeal of revenue, the Court held that; growing of plants in nursery is
an agricultural activity as this involves all activities of agricultural farming. Revenue
contended that assessee did not submit any document with regard to expenditure
incurred towards agricultural operations of nursery. Court held that, where revenue had
not raised issue of expenditure on income from flowers and petals of nursery during
assessment proceedings and even during appeal, it could not be introduced for first time
in appeal under section 260A. (AY. 2007-08)
CIT v. K. N. Pannirselvam (2016) 243 Taxman 219 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 2(1A) : Agricultural income – Estimation of income without considering the land 2

holding by the assessee was deleted.
Allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal held that, the assessee had land
holding of 75 acres therefore estimation of income was not justified. (AY. 2008-09)
Amarjit Singh v. ITO (2016) 48 ITR 622 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 2(IB) : Amalgamation – Order passed on amalgamating company was held to be 3

not nullity [S. 143(3)]
Assessment completed on the amalgamating company. Held, amalgamation took place
after the completion of the financial year in respect of which assessment was completed,
held, order passed on the amalgamating company was not a nullity. (AY. 2002-03)
CIT v. Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 14 / 240 Taxman 348 / 290 CTR 684
(Cal.)(HC)

S. 2(14) : Capital asset – Agricultural land – Method of measurement – Distance to 4

be measured taking into account access road – Certificates of Revenue and transport
authorities relevant – Certificates that land was beyond specified limit. [Ss. 2(14)(iii)
(b), 45, General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 11]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that; there could not be any
justifiable reason to reject the certificates of the Village Administrative Officer, Deputy
Surveyor and the General Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation. No reason had
been given by the AO for the rejection of the certificates. Method of measurement of
distance to be measured taking into account access road. The profit from sale of the
land was not assessable as capital gains. (AY. 2009-10)
CIT v. Sakunthala Rangarajan (Smt.) (2016) 389 ITR 103 / 292 CTR 451 / 74 taxmann.
com 94 (Mad.)(HC)

1
 Capital asset S.2(14)

5 S.2(14) : Capital asset – Sale of land – Land was not situated within jurisdiction of
a municipality or a cantonment board – Not assessable as capital gains or business
income – Entitle exemption. [Ss. 2(IA), 2(13), 2(14)(iii), 28(i), 45, 260A]
Assessee did not pay capital gains tax on sale of a land by treating it as agricultural land,
on the ground that the land was not situated within jurisdiction of a municipality or a
cantonment board as contemplated under clause (iii). Assessee was engaged in agricultural
operations on such land. It was specified as agricultural land in revenue records and
was not subjected to any conversion as non-agricultural land. AO called the report from
Tahsildar who stated that the land are not cultivated for the past 8 years. AO assessed
the income under the head capital gains. CIT(A) accepted the contention of assessee and
deleted the addition as capital gains. On appeal by revenue dismissing the appeal Tribunal
held that since intention of assessee from inception was to carry on agricultural operations
and there was no intention to sell land in future at that point of time and it was only
due to boom in real estate market which came into picture at a later stage, assessee sold
land, merely because of fact that land was sold for profit, it could not be held that income
arising from sale of land was taxable as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade.
On appeal High Court dismissed the appeal of revenue. (AY. 2011-12)
PCIT v. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 514 / 141 DTR 321 / 289 CTR 381
(Mad.)(HC)
Editorial: Order of Tribunal in ACIT v. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd. (2016) 157 ITD 194/
141 DTR 305/ 181 TTJ 821 (Chennai) (Trib.) is affirmed.

6 S. 2(14) : Capital asset – Capital gains – Sale of silver utensils – Loss incurred on sale
of silver utensils is held to be not allowable. [Ss. 28(i), 45]
The assessee claimed loss on sale of silver utensils. The Assessing Officer held that
silver wares being personal effects were not within the purview of the capital assets
in accordance with the definition of “capital asset” under section 2(14) of the Act. The
CIT(A) and the Tribunal confirmed this. On appeal : Held, that the silver utensils were
purchased in the year 1966-67. The occasion to use the silver utensils for the purpose
of business of the assessee arose at least 30 years after the silver utensils were allegedly
purchased. Therefore, the silver utensils could not be said to have been purchased for
the business of the assessee. The silver utensils were the personal effects of the assessee
and they were out of the purview of capital assets. The loss incurred on sale of silver
utensils was not allowable. (AY. 2001-02)
Ashok Surana v. CIT (2016) 384 ITR 267 (Cal.)(HC)

7 S. 2(14) : Capital asset – Advance given to subsidiary – Loss arising on sale of said
asset was held to be treated as short term capital loss – OECD Model Convention
[S. 2(47)(i), 9(1)(i), Art. 13]
Allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal held that Advance given by assessee, a non-
resident company, to its wholly owned subsidiary is a property in sense it is an interest which
a person can hold and enjoy, and since it is a property and it is not covered by exclusion
clauses set out in section 2(14), it is required to be treated as a ‘capital asset’ and if any loss
arises on sale of said asset, it would be treated as short term capital loss. (AY. 2002-03)
Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme GmbH v. DIT (2016) 158 ITD 480 / 179 TTJ 71
(Mum.)(Trib.)
2
S. 2(14) Capital asset

S. 2(14) : Capital asset – Agricultural land – Situation of a land nearby a highway and 8
appreciation in price would not alter character of land leading to conclusion that land
was not an agricultural land [S. 2(IA), 2(14)(iii), 45]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal held that; situation of a land nearby
a highway and appreciation in price would not alter character of land leading to
conclusion that land was not an agricultural land. (AY. 2010-11)
ITO v. Kalathingal Faizal Rahiman (2016) 158 ITD 488 (Cochin)(Trib.)

S. 2(14): Capital asset – Agricultural land – Agricultural land beyond 8 Kms. of 9

municipal limits, is it not a capital, hence not liable to be assessed as capital gains
[Ss. 2(14) (iii), 45]
Dismissing the appeal of revenue, the Tribunal held that since agricultural land in
question was lying in an area beyond 8 Kms. of municipal limits, it was not a capital
asset u/s. 2(14)(iii). Therefore, sale consideration was not liable to capital gains tax. (AY.
2008-09)
ITO v. Megh Chand Meena, HUF (2016) 159 ITD 457 / 181 TTJ 240 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 2(14) : Capital asset – Agricultural land – Beyond 8 kms from municipal limits – 10
Land bought by developer, could not be a determining factor by itself to say that land
was converted into use for non – agricultural purposes, gain is exempt from tax. [S.
2(14)(iii), 45]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal held that mere fact that land in
question was bought by Developer, could not be a determining factor by itself to say
that land was converted into use for non-agricultural purposes. Since land was situated
beyond 8 km from municipal limits, it did not come within purview of s. 2(14)(iii)
either under item (a) or (b) and hence same could not be considered as capital asset
and, thus, no capital gain tax could be charged on sale transaction of this land entered
by assessee. (AY. 2009-10)
ITO v. Ayisha Fathima (Smt.) (2016) 160 ITD 377 / 182 TTJ 437 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 2(14) : Capital asset – Agricultural land – Compensation on acquisition of 11

agricultural land, were existence of cattle shed, well, pump house, septic tank and
compound wall on said land would not convert it into non-Agricultural land. [S. 2(IA),
2(14)(iii), 45]
The AO held that 30 cents of land acquired consisted of a residential building with plinth
area of 1200 sq. feet, a cattle shed, a well, a pump house, septic tank, compound wall,
etc., and it would be fair and reasonable to hold that out of 30 cents of land, 20 cents of
land was required to accommodate above structures. He accordingly treated 1/3rd of value
of land as agricultural and 2/3rd of value along with surplus attributable to building as
non-agricultural. Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the assessee
was actually cultivating land with agricultural crops. Moreover, land was located within
a Panchayat far away from notified areas in Municipal Corporation. Mere existence of
well, septic tank, compound wall, cattle shed, pump house, a small house, etc., would
not convert agricultural land into a non-agricultural land. (AY. 2011-12)
T. C. Vavachan v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 48 (Cochin)(Trib.)

3
 Capital asset S.2(14)

12 S. 2(14) : Capital asset – Agricultural land – Land situated beyond 8KMs from
municipality or cantonment board cannot be considered as agricultural land merely
because it was recorded as agricultural land from revenue records. [S.2(14)(iii), 45]
Allowing the appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal held that, Land situated beyond 8KMs
from municipality or cantonment board cannot be considered as agricultural land merely
because it was recorded as agricultural land from revenue records. (AY. 2006-07)
ITO v. Aboobucker (2016) 157 ITD 717 / 141 DTR 78 / 180 TTJ 510 (Chennai)(Trib.)

13 S. 2(14) : Capital asset – Shares – Non-resident not having permanent establishment

in India – Provisions relating to minimum alternate tax, transfer pricing and TDS
not applicable – Non-resident not bound to file return in India – DTAA – India –
Mauritius. [S. 92 to 92F, 115JB, 139, 195, Art. 5, 13]
Non-resident not having permanent establishment in India, Transaction not for
avoidance of tax. Shares to be treated as capital asset not stock-in-trade. Profits not
business income but capital gains which is not taxable in India. Even if treated as
business income not taxable in absence of permanent establishment. Provisions relating
to minimum alternate tax, transfer pricing and TDS not applicable. Non-resident is not
bound to file return in India considering the DTAA-India-Mauritius.
Dow Agro Sciences Agricultural Products Ltd., In re (2016) 380 ITR 668 / 131 DTR 177 /
65 taxmann.com 245 / 284 CTR 50 (AAR)

14 S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose – Town improvement trust formed under Act – Entitled
to exemption. [S.11, 12, 12A, 12AA]
Assessee deriving income from constructing and selling residential apartments,
commercial flats and booths. Activities carried out with larger and predominant objective
of general public utility of satisfying need for housing accommodation. Merely referring
to extent of profit making activities without correlating it to other activities of trust not
proper. Assessee entitled to exemption. (AY. 2009-10, 2011-12)
CIT v. Improvement Trust Moga (2016) 76 taxmann.com 363/ (2017) 390 ITR 547 / 291
CTR 352 / 145 DTR 350 (P&H)(HC)

15 S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose – Publication of newspapers – Business income of the Trust

predominant motive was profit motive denial of exemption was justified [S. 11, 12, 12A].
The issue involved was interpretation of section 2(15) of the Act, and in particular
proviso thereto. Court held that the amendment also indicates that the legislature
accepted the observations in Surat Art Silk’s to the effect that the purpose of the
enacting section 2(15) in 1961 was to overcome the decision of the Privy Council in
the Tribune’s case. While the legislature in the 1984 amendment which continued up
to the year 2009 altered this position by deleting the words “not involving the carrying
on of any activity for profit”, it reintroduced an exclusionary clause albeit in different
and wider terms in the 2009 amendment. The exclusionary clause related to the object
of general public utility and not the advancement thereof.
The normal incidence of trade and commerce is also profit. Considering the nature of
the legislation, we are inclined to accept Mr. Bhan’s contention that each of these three
words indicates the element of profit. A wider meaning ought not to be given to these
words especially in a taxing statute. Section 2(15) defines charitable purpose. As in the
4
S. 2(15) Charitable purpose

case of any other definition, it is to assist the construction of the main provisions in
which the terms defined are used. The main provisions such as sections 11, 12 and 13
use the words “charitable purpose” in the context of granting the assessee’s the relief
against taxation partly or fully often subject to certain conditions. If a trade or business
or commercial activity does not result in profit, it would not be necessary to deal with
the same in the Income-tax Act. The relief from taxation partly or fully predicates
taxability and taxability predicates income and income predicates profit. This is the
normal sense of these terms. There is nothing in the Act which persuades us that the
words are used in section 2(15) with a different intention. There is nothing in the Act
and in particular section 2(15) thereof that indicates that the legislature contemplated
a trade or a business or a commercial activity other than for profit. It is obviously for
this reason that the legislature did not add to the words “trade, commerce or business”
(used twice in the proviso) the words “carried on for profit”. On facts the question was
answered in favour of revenue. (AY. 2009-10)
The Tribune Trust v. CIT (2016) 76 taxmann.com 363 / (2017) 390 ITR 547 / 291 CTR 352
/ 145 DTR 350 (P&H)(HC)

S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose – No denial of exemption under S. 11 to an educational 16

trust if it lets out its auditorium for educational activities. [S. 11, 12A]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the court held that ;if the pre-dominant object
is to carry out a charitable purpose and not to earn profit, the purpose would not
lose its charitable character merely because the some profit arises from the activity.
Therefore exemption cannot be denied under S. 11 to an educational trust if it let out
its auditorium for educational activities. (AY. 2009-10)
DIT(E) v. Lala Lajpatrai Memorial Trust (2016) 383 ITR 345 / 136 DTR 233 / 240 Taxman
557 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose – For providing training charging fees – Such activity 17
does not amount to services in relation to trade, commerce and industry it amounts
to imparting education. [S. 10(23C)(vi)]
Assessee institution engaged in imparting higher and specialized education in field
of communication including advertising and its related subjects. Training given to
individual as well as to persons sent by companies to meet needs of Indian industry
and commerce. Held, such activity does not amount to services in relation to trade,
commerce and industry it amounts to imparting education, it will still be held that the
institution exist solely for educational purpose.
Mudra Foundation for Communications Research & Education v. CCIT (2016) 237 Taxman
139 / 137 DTR 293 / 287 CTR 135 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose – Activities undertaken by the assessee cannot be said to 18

be of a charitable and religious nature in the absence of any trust deed, registration
under sections 12AA/80G and further where the bank accounts were maintained in
the individual assessee’s name. [S.12AA, 80G]
Assessee filed a return of income declaring his total income of ` 2,10,870/-. The
assessee, in the course of assessment proceedings, stated that he was a religious

5
 Charitable purpose S. 2(15)

preacher and that he did not have any personal bank account and that he did not
carry out any business activity. AO obtained information from the bank under section
133(6) and treated income from bank deposits as assessee’s income from profession and
vocation and after disallowing certain expenses made an addition of ` 1,21,67,653/-.
CIT(A) and ITAT dismissed the assessee’s appeals against the above stated additions.
Before the High Court, the assessee submitted that he managed an old historic Dera
carrying on charitable and religious activities and the bank accounts were that of
the Dera and the assessee merely managed the same. High Court noted that the bank
account was in the name of the assessee and had a nomination in favour of the
assessee’s son and therefore could not be said to be that of the Dera. High Court rejected
the argument that the activities done by the appellant were of charitable and religious
nature and were being done in the name of Dera. High Court noted that there was no
trust deed, no registration sought under section 12AA, etc. High Court dismissed the
assessee’s appeal as no illegality or perversity in the order of the Tribunal was pointed
out. (AY. 2009-10)
Makhan Singh v. ITO (2016) 236 Taxman 364 / 136 DTR 336 (P&H)(HC)

19 S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose – Medical relief – Running veterinary hospitals is covered

under specific category of ‘medical relief’ hence eligible exemption. [S.11]
Assessee engaged in running veterinary hospitals, collected nominal cess from milk
producers members in lieu of providing them research, animal nursery, fertility,
vaccination and breed improvement facilities, it could be regarded as rendering medical
relief services, therefore, assessee could not be regarded as an entity advancing any other
object of general public utility covered by proviso to S. 2(15). (AY 2010-11)
Amul Research & Development Association v. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 454 / 182 TTJ 794 /
145 DTR 30 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

20 S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose – Coaching for particular examination does not amount
to imparting education – Not entitle to exemption. [S. 11]
The main object of the assessee, a trust registered under section 12A of the Income
tax Act, 1961, was conducting review and courses for helping aspiring members in
preparing for Certified Information Systems Auditor and Certified Information Security
Manager certification and organizing seminars and workshops on various topics in
the field of information technology, security, control and audit. The assessee claimed
exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the claim on
the ground that the assessee had collected a sum from persons appearing for the
examination for the course of certified information system auditor and seminar fees from
the participants which showed that the assessee was engaged in commercial activity in
the nature of trade, business and commerce and hence the object of the assessee fell
under advancement of any other object of general public utility and the provisions of
section 2(15) were clearly attracted. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order
of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that the definition of charitable purpose was
inclusive and not exhaustive. A coaching institute could not be considered an institution
as normal schooling. Mere coaching classes might provide some kind of knowledge to
the students but that kind of acquisition of knowledge through coaching classes could

6
S. 2(22)(e) Deemed dividend

not fall within the meaning of “education” as provided in section 2(15) of the Act. The
assessee carried on advancement of any other object of general public utility and in
terms of the proviso to section 2(15), advancement of any other object of general public
utility would not be charitable purpose if it involves any activity of rendering any
service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for consideration, irrespective of
the application of the money. Therefore, the assessee was hit by the proviso to section
2(15) and was not entitled to the benefit of section 11. It could not be considered to
be an “educational trust” within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act and it was not
entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act and the income of the assessee was to
be assessed as business income under the head “association of persons”. (AY. 2009-10)
Information Systems Audit and Control Association v. DDIT (E) (2016) 157 ITD 815 / 46
ITR 665 / 179 TTJ 99 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose – Education – Proviso would not apply where assessee 21
– society, running an educational institution for courses of B.Tech, M.Tech, and MBA,
maintained a textile unit for purpose of imparting practical training to students. [S.11]
Allowing the appeal of assessee the Tribunal held that; Proviso would not apply where
assessee-society, running an educational institution for courses of B.Tech, M.Tech, and
MBA, maintained a textile unit for purpose of imparting practical training to students.
Technological Institute of Textile & Science v. DIT (2016) 158 ITD 808 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 2(15) : Charitable purpose – Provision of Medical Relief is charitable activity hence 22

surplus generated does not disentitle assessee from exemption. [S. 11, 12AA]
The activity in the nature of ‘medical relief ’ fell outside the scope of the proviso to
section 2(15). Hence, any surplus resulting from the aforementioned activity would
not be taxable, if the surplus was dealt with in the manner provided under the Act.
Accordingly, the corpus donations were not to be included in the assessee’s total
income. (AY. 2010-11)
Sundaram Medical Foundation v. Dy. CIT (E) (2016) 45 ITR 500 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Loan from subsidiaries – Intermediary between the 23

two subsidiaries – Additions cannot be made as deemed dividend.
Dismissing the appeal of revenue, the Court held that in view of the decision of
the Division Bench of the Madras High Court made in [Tax Case (Appeal) No. 16 of
2010, dated 17-6-2013], wherein the assessee-company received loans from some of its
subsidiaries and advanced money to some of the subsidiaries and on the basis of the
available particulars it has been held that the assessee-company is only a intermediary
between the two subsidiary companies and no beneficial interest has been accrued to it
by the advances between the subsidiary companies and sub-subsidiary companies and
consequently the ingredients of section 2(22)(e) is not attracted, the instant Bench is of
the considered view that the revenue has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere
with the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order passed by the Commissioner
(Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. (AY. 2006-07)
CIT v. Farida Holdings (P.) Ltd. (2016) 243 Taxman 428 (Mad.)(HC)
Editorial: SLP was granted to the revenue, CIT v. Farida Holdings (P.) Ltd. (2016) 243
Taxman 434 (SC)
7
 Deemed dividend S. 2(22)(e)

24 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Not a shareholder – Addition cannot be made as

deemed dividend.
Tribunal held that as assessee was not shareholder of two companies, amount received
by it did not attract provisions of deemed dividend. On appeal to High Court: The
Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 263
and CIT v. Impact Containers (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 346 has held that deemed dividend
has to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder of the company giving the loans and/
or advance. In the instant case, admittedly, the assessee is not a shareholder of the two
companies. In the above view, the question as formulated by the revenue did not give
rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. (AY. 2005-06)
CIT v. Alfa Sai Minerals (P.) Ltd. (2016) 243 Taxman 216 (Bom.)(HC)
Editorial : SLP was granted to the revenue, CIT v. Alfa Sai Mineral (P.) Ltd. (2016) 243
Taxman 140 (SC)

25 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Not a shareholder – Not liable to be taxed as deemed

dividend.
Dismissing the appeal of revenue, the Court held that; the assessee is not shareholder
of company advancing loan, hence not be liable to be taxed on deemed dividend. (AY.
2007-08)
CIT v. Narmina Trade Investment P. Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 243 (Bom.)(HC)

26 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Share premium does not constitute accumulated profits
or even profits of company – Payment made by company in ordinary course of its
business of money lending being substantial part of its business – Payment does not
amount to deemed dividend.
An advance or loan made to a shareholder or the concern by a company in the
ordinary course of its business, where the lending of money was a substantial part of
the business of the company was not deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Further,
share premium would not constitute accumulated profits or even profits of the company.
(AY. 2004-05)
CIT v. Shree Balaji Glass Manufacturing P. Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 128 / 241 Taxman 265
(Cal.)(HC)

27 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Loan or advance to a non-shareholder, though

beneficial owner, cannot be treated as deemed dividend.
The assessee received a loan from M/s. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd. whose 99% of shares
were held by M/s. Vectra Holding Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee owns 95% of the
shares. The AO treated the said loan as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The
CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s action, however, the Tribunal reversed the same. On appeal,
the High Court held that since the assessee is not a shareholder in the lender company
which is condition for invoking section 2(22)(e), loan amount cannot be taxed in the
hands of assessee. (AY. 2008-09)
PCIT v. Rajeev Chandrashekar (2016) 239 Taxman 216 (Karn.)(HC)
Editorial : SLP was granted, PCIT v. Rajeev Chandrashekar (2016) 243 Taxman 139 (SC)

8
S. 2(22)(e) Deemed dividend

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Shareholder – Deposits made by the investors were 28

retained by the assessee in the firm for a longer period – Assessable as deemed
dividend.
The assessee could not explain why the heavy deposits made by the investors were
retained by the assessee in the firm for a longer period, it was held to be a case of
deemed income as the assessee was a shareholder in all the companies. (AY. 1995-1996
to 1998-1999)
CIT v. O.P. Srivastava (2013) 219 Taxman 133 / (2014) 265 CTR 484 / (2016) 385 ITR
547 (All.)(HC)
CIT v. Subrat Roy (2013) 219 Taxman 133 / (2014) 265 CTR 484 / (2016) 385 ITR 547
(All.)(HC)
Editorial : The decision was recalled by order dt 21 February, 2014. The Supreme Court
seta aside the order (CIT v. Subrata Roy (2016) 385 ITR 570 / 287 CTR 129 / 71 taxmann.
com 89 (SC)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Deposits received by the Assessee, a partnership firm, 29

who is not a shareholder in a concern from which deposit was received – Deemed
dividend taxable only in the hands of shareholders.
Dismissing the appeal of revenue; The High Court observed the definition of the effect
of clause (e) of section 2(22) was to broaden the ambit of the expression ‘dividend’ by
including certain payments which company had made by way of loan or advance or
payments made on behalf of or for individual benefit of a shareholder. However the
definition did not alter the legal position that dividend has to be taxed in the hands of
the shareholder. The High Court thus ruled in favour of the Assessee.
CIT v. Skyline Great Hills (2016) 238 Taxman 675 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Inter-corporate transactions – Loans given by 30

companies to each other in course of inter se business transactions could not be
regarded as deemed dividend.
Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that; Assessee is major share
holder in three companies, loans given by those companies to each other in the course
of inter se business transactions could not be regarded as deemed dividend in the hands
of the assessee. (AY. 2009-10)
Chandrasekhar Maruti v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 822 / (2017) 183 TTJ 459 / 146 DTR 198
(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Assessee-firm was not shareholder of its sister concern, 31
provisions was not attracted
Tribunal held that; since assessee-firm was not shareholder of its sister concern,
provisions of deemed dividend was not attracted. (AY. 2007-08)
Shiv Transport & Travels v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 835 (Kol.)(Trib.)

9
 Deemed dividend S. 2(22)(e)

32 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Loan received and paid – Only excess amount of debit
in books of account of company can be considered as deemed dividend, matter was
remanded.
Tribunal held that where the assessee, received the loan and also paid the loan, only
excess amount of debit in books of account of company can be considered as deemed
dividend. Matter was remanded. (AY. 2005-06 to 2007-08)
Gurbinder Singh v. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 256 (Chennai)(Trib.)

33 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Advance in course of a commercial transactions the

said advance cannot be assessed as deemed dividend.
Allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal held that advance is in course of a
commercial transaction between advancer company and the advance company, it would
not be regarded as ‘loan’ or ‘advance’ to be assessed as deemed dividend. (AY. 2011-12)
Namita V. Samant v. CIT (2016) 161 ITD 15 (Mum.)(Trib.)

34 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Commercial transactions between closely held

companies cannot be assessed as deemed dividend.
The Tribunal held that when the amount was advanced or paid out of any commercial
expediency or in the course of business and were not gratuitous payments for
the benefit of the shareholders, then such payment made through inter corporate
transactions between the parties cannot be treated deemed dividend at the hands of
assessee shareholder. Thus the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not applicable in this
case. (AY. 2009-10)
Chandrasekhar Maruti Musale v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 822 / (2017) 183 TTJ 459 (Mum.)
(Trib.)

35 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Loan by proprietary concern of assessee was held to

be deemed dividend.
Dismissing the appeal of assesse the Tribunal held that there is nothing on record
to suggest that the amounts given by the company to the assessee shareholder were
consideration for the personal guarantees and collateral securities given by him for the
loans raised by the company. VFPL has accumulated profits in reserves and surplus and
therefore the amounts received by the assessee are in the nature of loans and advances
attracting the provisions of S. 2(22)(e) and, therefore, the same are taxable as deemed
dividend. (AY. 2008-09, 2009-10)
Dipesh Lalchand Shah v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 515 / 179 TTJ 654 / 138 DTR 155 (Ahd.)
(Trib.)

36 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Assessee was neither beneficial shareholder nor even
a shareholder, provisions of section 2(22)€ cannot be applied.
The assessee was not a registered shareholder of GTL from which it had received an
advance during the previous year in question. The only ground on which the Assessing
Officer had treated the amount as deemed dividend was that both the companies had
common shareholders. That could not be a reason for treating the amount as deemed
dividend under section 2(22)(e). Since the Assessing Officer had failed to establish that

10
S. 2(22)(e) Deemed dividend

the assessee was the beneficial shareholder or even a shareholder of GTL, the provisions
of section 2(22)(e) could not be applied. (AY. 2009-10)
DCIT v. Gebbs Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 46 ITR 551 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Loan or advance by NBFC to be excluded – Literal 37

interpretation to deeming provisions. [S.115-O]
The assessee was engaged in the business of media operation. It received loan from
two non-banking financial companies. The Assessing Officer treated the advances as
deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) read with sections 56 and 115-O of the Income
tax Act, 1961, holding that the directors of the assessee were substantially interested in
the lender companies and some of the shareholders were common in both companies.
The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition. The Tribunal held that the lender
companies were registered with the Reserve Bank of India since 1998 in the category
of loan investment company. The lender companies were public limited companies
and so the loan or advance given to the assessee would not fall in the ken of section
2(22)(e) and, moreover, the lender companies were non-banking financial companies
which were also excluded from the deeming provision. Further a deeming provision
has to be interpreted strictly and it cannot be stretched to more than that for which the
deeming provision can be literally interpreted. Nothing can be added or implied while
interpreting a deeming provision. One can only look at the language used. (AY. 2008-09)
DCIT v. Sindhu Holdings Ltd. (2016) 46 ITR 771 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Loan by company – Percentage of shareholding has to 38

be checked at the time of availing loan for purpose of deemed dividend.
For invoking the provision of section 2(22)(e), percentage of shareholding has to be
checked at the time of availing loan for purpose of deemed dividend, therefore, the
loan given to the assessee should not be treated as ‘deemed dividend’ for the purpose
of invoking provisions of section 2(22)(e). (AY. 2005-06)
ACIT v. Jagjit Singh Jaswant Singh Oberoi (2015) 155 ITD 283 / (2016) 177 TTJ 118 / 134
DTR 74 (Nag.)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Loan – Beneficial ownership of more than 10 per cent 39
shares in a closely held company – Assessable as deemed dividend. [S. 153A]
Assessee, who was a shareholder and director in a closely held company having
beneficial ownership of more than 10 per cent shares, had taken certain loan from
company. In assessment proceedings assessee submitted that loan was taken for purpose
of purchase of land for company and, therefore, could not be treated as deemed
dividend. However, assessee failed to prove by furnishing relevant details in form of
agreements or details of amount spent for purpose for which it was drawn and he kept
on changing his arguments at each stage of proceedings. Tribunal held that loan taken
by assessee was rightly considered as deemed dividend. (AY. 2007-08 to 2009-10)
M. Amareswara Rao v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 657 / 136 DTR 153 / 178 T TJ 700
(Visakha)(Trib)

11
 Deemed dividend S. 2(22)(e)

40 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Not applicable to loans or deposits from public

company.
On appeal by revenue, the Tribunal while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee,
held that since S Ltd. was a public limited company and registered with RBI since
1998 in the category of loan investment company and engaged in activities of share
sale, financing activities, etc. the loan or advance or inter-corporate deposit given to the
assessee did not fall within section 2(22)(e) and moreover, it was a non-banking financial
company which was excluded from the deeming provision. (AY. 2008-09)
Dy. CIT v. Sindhu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 45 ITR 448 (Delhi)(Trib.)

41 S. (22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Loans and advances to shareholders – Loans received

by the company would be treated as deemed dividend in hands of P and S in
proportion to their shareholdings.
Assessees P and S were directors in two sister companies namely AI and AE.
Shareholdings of both directors in AE was 50 per cent whereas in AI it was 53.85 per
cent for P and 46.11 per cent for S. AI had received ` 10 lakh as loan from AE. AO held
that loan received from was to be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of individual
directors and since P and S were equal beneficiary of shares to tune of 50 per cent each
in AI the company which had received the loan. On appeal CIT(A) affirmed the order
of AO. On appeal the assessees contended that no mechanism had been provided in
Act regarding computation of deemed dividend in hands of directors and in absence of
any such mechanism, charging provisions would fail and no additions could be made.
Tribunal held that if by reasonable construction of relevant section, income could be
deduced, then merely on ground that specific provision had not been provided, it could
not be held that computation provisions failed; therefore, percentage of shareholdings in
concern to which loan was given would be determining factor of deemed dividend in
case of shareholder and accordingly, 53.85 per cent, i.e., ` 5,38,850 should have been
assessed as dividend in hands of P and 46.11 per cent, i.e. ` 4,61,100, in hands of S.
(AY. 2007-08)
Puneet Bhagat v. ITO (2016) 157 ITD 353 (SMC)(Delhi)(Trib.)

42 S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Business transactions – Accounts produced by assessee

shows that it has several transactions with the company relating to purchase and
sale of goods, job work charges, rent paid and received – Transactions are business
transactions in ordinary course of business – Could not be treated as deemed dividend
Held that copy of account shows that the assessee has number of transactions related
to purchase & sale of goods, job work charges, rent received & paid. Also, there was
debit balance in the books of assessee and there was a closing credit balance. Thereby,
these are business transactions during the ordinary course of business. Said cannot be
construed as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e). (AY. 1999-00, 2005-06)
K. G. Petrochem Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 176 TTJ 1(UO) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

12
S. 2(22)(d) Deemed dividend

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Loan account is different from a current account on 43

which provisions of s. 2(22)(e) are not applicable.
There was a running current account between the assessee and the private limited
company in which she was a director. At the end of the year, the balance was squared
off and there was no closing balance. The AO held that the monies lent by the company
to the Assessee were loans and advances within the meaning of s. 2(22)(e). The ITAT
deleted the addition made by the AO and held that the current account between the
Assessee and the Director was a mutual account which was reciprocal demands between
the parties and did not benefit the assessee alone. It was thus held that s. 2(22)(e)
cannot be invoked on current account transactions. (AY. 2009-10)
ITO v. Gayatri Chakraborty (Smt.) (2016) 45 ITR 197 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Not applicable to loans from NBFCs and companies 44
which are listed on a stock exchange.
The assessee had received inter-corporate deposit from another company which was an
NBFC and was listed in the Delhi Stock Exchange. The AO treated the same as deemed
dividend and added the same to the income of the Assessee. On appeal, the ITAT held
that the said loan could not be considered as deemed dividend since deeming provisions
were to be read strictly and NBFCs and listed companies were excluded from the said
provision. (AY. 2008-09)
DCIT v. Sindhu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 45 ITR 448 (Delhi)(Trib.)
DCIT v. Sindhu Holdings Ltd. (2016) 176 TTJ 41 (UO) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Son and daughter had over dawn from the company 45
where the assessee was a share holder having 41 percent of shares – Addition cannot
be made as deemed dividend.
Allowing the appeal of assessee the Tribunal held that; Where assessee was a
shareholder in a company holding 41 per cent of shares and during year he and his son
and daughter had overdrawn certain amount from said company and Assessing Officer
treating said amount as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) added same in income
of assessee, since both son and daughter were not shareholders in company and during
year company got only negative accumulated profits, provisions of section 2(22)(e) could
not be invoked. (AY. 2007-08)
Manoj Murarka v. ACIT (2016) 156 ITD 793 / (2017) 184 TTJ 555 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(d) : Deemed dividend – Buy-back cannot be assessed as deemed dividend – 46

The capital gains on buy – back are exempt under the India-Mauritius DTAA – [Art.
10, Companies Act, S.77, 100, 105, 391]
A buy back cannot be regarded as a “colourable transaction” and cannot be assessed as
“deemed dividend”. The capital gains on buy-back are exempt under the India-Mauritius
DTAA. (ITA No. 3726/Mum/2015, dt. 12.02.2015)(AY. 2011-12)
Goldman Sachs (India)Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org

13
 Deemed dividend S. 2(22)(d)

47 S.2(22)(d) : Deemed dividend – Redemption of preference shares does not constitute

“deemed dividend”. [S.2(47), Companies Act, S. 80(3), 100]
Redemption of preference shares does not constitute “deemed dividend”. (ITA No. 4669/
Mum/2014. Dt. 06.04.2016)(AY. 2005-06)
Uday K. Pradhan v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org

48 S. 2(24) : Income – Interest – Accrual – Rate of interest reduced by passing resolution

by board of directors before end of year – Interest taxable at reduced rate. [S. 4, 145]
On a reference answering the question in favour of assessee the Court held that the
Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the interest had accrued on day-to-day
basis and not at the end of the year and that the interest rate stood reduced only from
March 17, 1989. On facts the rate of interest was reduced by passing resolution by board
of directors before end of year hence interest was taxable at reduced rates. (AY. 1989-90)
Renu Sagar Power Col. Ltd v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 310 (All.)(HC)

49 S. 2(24) : Income – Accrual – Amount given by Government for a specified purpose

for utilisation in Government scheme, said amount and interest could not be assessed
as income of the assessee. [S. 4, 145]
Allowing the appeal of the assesse, the Court held that; the assessee was to act as a
custodian of the money, the utilisation thereof was fully controlled by the Government,
the money remained as given for the specified purpose and the interest earned was also
to be utilised for specified purpose, but under the control of the Government as per
the conditions of the grant. There was no liberty available to the assessee to utilise the
amount of interest as it desired. Hence no income accrued to the assessee.(AY. 2008-09,
2010-11)
Karnataka Municipal Data Society v. ITO (2016) 389 ITR 441 / 76 Taxmann.com 167
(Karn.)(HC)

50 S. 2(24) : Income – Interest received from overseas head office – Not taxable.
Interest received by the Indian branch of a foreign bank from the head office is not
taxable in India. (AY. 1998-99, 1999-2000)
DIT (IT) v. Oman International Bank S.A.O.G. (2016) 386 ITR 151 (Bom.)(HC)

51 S. 2(24) : Income – Accrual – Lease of factory to group company – Reduction in lease

rent by resolution of board of directors on account of financial inability – Bona fides
of transaction not in dispute – Reduced rent alone to be taxed. [S. 145]
The assessee took a sugar factory on lease and sub-leased it to its sister concern on an
annual rental of ` 225 lakhs. In the previous year relevant to the AY. 2002-03, due to
extensive repairs and renovations, the assessee agreed to reduce the lease rent to ` 75
lakhs and a board resolution was adopted on March 5, 2002 by the board of directors
of the assessee in respect of the reduction in the lease rent from the sub-lessee. Held,
since the bona fides of the transaction were never in dispute and there was evidence
to show that the assessee had resolved to remit the sum of ` 150 lakhs and that it had
received only ` 75 lakhs, no addition could be made.(AY. 2002-03)
CIT v. Shree Hanuman Sugar and Industries Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 218 / 243 Taxman 417
(Cal.)(HC)
14
S. 2(24) Income

S. 2(24) : Income – Capital or revenue – Sales tax subsidy – Subsidy for encouraging 52
industries to set up units in rural areas – Subsidy constituted a capital receipt. [S.4]
Subsidy given in accordance with the scheme of the State Government for encouraging
the industries to set up their units in rural areas and for compensating for the hardship
in setting up such industries in remote rural areas was capital receipt and not taxable.
(AY. 2005-06)
PCIT v. Talbros Engineering Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 154 (P&H)(HC)

S. 2(24) : Income – Society, which ran a business enterprise in its own name was duty 53
bound to offer its profits to tax before diverting any funds to ‘Distributable Pool Fund
Account’ for distribution to its members – Amount transferred is not assessable as
income of the Society. [Ss. 4, 80P]
The assessee was a society of ‘Maliks’ who were owners of land (Agar) on which salt
was manufactured. The society was formed inter alia to acquire from the ‘Maliks’ their
rights and to manufacture salt and its bye-products. Assessee manufactured and sold salt
and other bye-products in its own name. The sale proceeds were being transferred to an
account called ‘Distributable Pool Fund Account’ for distribution among the members
of the society. After such transfer to the members, the society would offer remaining
income to tax. The AO held that such transfer could not be considered as expenditure,
accordingly assessed the amount transferred to ‘Distributable Pool Fund Account’ during
the year.
The High Court held that society earns ‘profits’ which falls within the definition of
‘income’ under Section 2(24) of the Act. Therefore the AO was right in holding that the
transfer of ‘fund’ for subsequent distribution to the members before payment of tax is
not a ‘deductible expenditure’ in computation of business income of the assessee, further
held that the income declared after disbursement of profits is not logical and has no
relevance in determination of taxable profit under the Income-tax Act. Further the High
Court held that assessee, a co-operative entity which runs a business enterprise is duty
bound to offer its profits to tax before diverting any funds to the ‘Distributable Pool
Fund Account’ and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. Amount transferred is not assessable
as income of the Society. (AY. 2007-08)(2006-07)
CIT v. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-operative Society Ltd. (2016) 238 Taxman 689 / 135 DTR
22 / 290 CTR 211 (Karn.)(HC)
CIT v. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Co-operative Society Ltd. (2016) 76 taxmann.com 2 / (2017)
390 ITR 415 / 291 CTR 287 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 2(24) : Income – Capital or revenue – Receipt representing compensation for loss of 54

source of income would be treated as capital receipt.
Assessee was a journalist by profession and was appointed as the foreign correspondent
in India of a German news magazine. German publisher paid a lump sum amount upon
termination as sign off compensation for association of past 23 years and loss of work
space. Assessing Officer treated the compensation received to be revenue in nature and
chargeable to tax under Income-tax Act, 1961.
High Court noted that the receipt in the hands of the Assessee was compensation for
loss of an income generating asset. Termination of contract had fatally injured the

15
 Income S. 2(24)

appellant’s only source of income for the last 23 years. The mere fact that the Assessee
was free to earn through other sources would not make a difference. High Court relied
on Supreme Court ruling in Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261(SC)
and Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 903(SC) wherein the court held that if
receipt represents compensation for the loss of a source of income, it would be capital
and it matters little that the assessee continues to be in receipt of income from its other
similar operations. Accordingly the Court ruled in favour of the Assessee and treated
the receipt as capital receipt. (AY. 1994-95)
CIT v. Sharda Sinha (2016) 237 Taxman 111 (Delhi)(HC)

55 S. 2(24) : Income – Contribution by employees to staff welfare scheme is similar to

sundry creditors and hence is not taxable [S. 2(24)(x)]
The employees of the assessee had contributed to a staff welfare scheme. The AO taxed
the same considering that it would fall within the category of any other fund for the
welfare of employees as specified in s. 2(24)(x). The ITAT held that the staff welfare
scheme account could be considered as sundry creditors and not as a welfare scheme
account as defined in s. 2(24)(x). (AY. 2010-11)
Muthoot Finance Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2016) 52 ITR 241 (Cochin)(Trib.)

56 S. 2(24) : Income – Insertion of sub-clause (xviii) is not retrospective – Assessee

received subsidy from Tea Board and Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government
of India – Prior to aforesaid amendment, if a subsidy was regarded as revenue subsidy,
it would be taxable besides value of subsidy getting reduced from actual cost of
depreciable assets for purpose of allowing depreciation [S. 2(24)(xviii), 43(1)]
Held that the aforesaid amendment to S. 2(24)(xviii) of the Act has two parts. The first
part says that any subsidy whether it is capital or revenue will be regarded as “income”.
The second part is that, if the value of the subsidy is reduced from the value of actual
cost u/s.43(1) of the Act for allowing depreciation, then the subsidy will not be taxed
as “income”. If, we were to hold that the amendment is retrospective then the 1st part
of the amendment by which any subsidy, whether capital or revenue, is to be regarded
as “Income” will create a charge to tax and unless the legislature specifically imposes
a charge to tax, retrospectively cannot be given. Therefore the first part cannot be
regarded as having retrospective operation. The second part of the amended provision
of S.2(24)(xviii) of the Act gives a relief in the form of relieving double taxation, one
in the form of the subsidy being taxed as income and again the value of subsidy being
reduced from the actual cost of fixed assets on which depreciation is to be allowed.
It is not possible to regard one part of an amended provision as having retrospective
operation and the other part having only prospective operation. If the legislature wanted
the amendment to be applicable in the manner as contended by assessee, it would have
so provided in the Finance Act, 2015. By a process of interpretation it would not be
proper to regard retrospectively to only one part of an amendment. Therefore prior to
the amendment referred to above, if a subsidy is regarded as revenue subsidy, it would
be taxable besides the value of the subsidy getting reduced from the actual cost of

16
S. 2(28A) Interest

depreciable assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation, if the conditions laid down
in Explanation 10 to S.43(1) of the Act are satisfied. (AY. 2006-07)
Limtex Tea & Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 156 ITD 900 / 176 TTJ 265 / 131 DTR 209
(Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 2(24) : Income – Interest from recurring deposits is taxable on maturity when it 57

gets entitled and due.
The Assessee deposited funds in recurring deposits with banks for varying periods from
3-10 years. Since, the interest on the recurring deposits was payable at the time of maturity,
the same was not offered for tax. The AO held that since in case of recurring deposit the
interest is received and reinvested, it has to be taxed every year. The ITAT held that the
interest in respect of securities were entitled, due and receivable only on maturity and
accordingly, it would taxed in that year. Further, the entire income had accrued and was
offered to tax in subsequent AY by the assessee. (AY. 2001-02, 2003-04 to 2008-09)
West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation v. ACIT (2016) 45 ITR 285
(Kol.)(Trib.)
DCIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation (2016) 45 ITR 285
(Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 2(24) : Income – Interest is crystallized and accrues in the year in which it gets 58
finalized and quantified and would be taxable in that year.
The assessee had deposited sums with Pay and Accounts Office of the Government
of West Bengal, which did not initially carry interest. In 2001 it was pointed out that
the funds were kept in interest bearing account, and interest was due to be paid to
public sector undertakings. Subsequently, after much negotiations, in 2004, the State
Government decided that it would pay interest. According to the assessee, the interest
had crystallized in 2005 when it was ultimately quantified and accrued to it. According
to the AO, the interest had accrued in the impugned AY. It was held by the ITAT that
considering the fact that the interest was finalized and quantified in 2005, it would have
crystallized then and would be taxable in that year. (AY. 2001-02, 2003-04 to 2008-09)
West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation v. ACIT (2016) 45 ITR 285
(Kol.)(Trib.)
DCIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation (2016) 45 ITR 285
(Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 2(28A) : Interest – Loan processing fees – Tax deduction at source provisions will 59
not apply to loan processing fees paid to any banking company to which Banking
Regulations Act, 1949 applies. [S. 194A, 194J, Banking Regulations Act, 1949]
Definition of interest as given in S. 2(28A) will include any service fee or any other
charge in respect of money borrowed; thus, loan, processing fee falls within such
definition and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any
managerial services by bank. Loan processing fees paid to any banking company to
which Banking Regulations Act, 1949 applies, is not liable to deduction of TDS. (AY.
2010-11)
DCIT v. Laqshya Media (P.) Ltd. (2016) 160 ITD 35 / 182 TTJ 318 (Mum.)(Trib.)

17
 Short-term capital asset S. 2(42A)

60 S. 2(42A) : Short-term capital asset – Period of holding is to be determined from the

date on which the agreement to purchase is entered into by paying a substantial
amount though the sale deed is executed at a later point in time.
Assessee agreed to purchase land by way of an agreement dated 1st April, 1995 for
which an advance of ` 40 lakh was paid by the assessee to the seller in terms of the
agreement. However, due to certain disputes the sale deed could not be executed.
Ultimately, a compromise was entered into between the parties, and in terms of the
said compromise, instead of 3 acres 39 guntas of land which was to be sold in favour
of the assessee, only 27 guntas of land was agreed to be sold to the assessee. A sale
deed was executed in favour of the assessee on 5th December, 2002 and the balance
sum of ` 1 lakh was paid by the assessee. Assessee sold the land to a third party on
20th May 2005 for ` 1,02,50,000/- and treated the gains as long term capital gains. AO
held the gains to be short term in nature. HC, following the SC decision in the case of
Sanjeev Lal, held the gains to be long term in nature. HC observed that in the facts of
the present case out of a sum of ` 41 lakh which was payable, the assessee had already
paid ` 40 lakh at the time of entering into of the agreement to sell. HC further held that
determination of period of holding was a beneficial piece of legislation and the same
had to be construed liberally. (AY. 2006-07)
Lahar Singh Siroya v. ACIT (2016) 138 DTR 331 (Karn.)(HC)

61 S. 2(42A) : Short-term capital asset – Immovable property – Period of holding

would commence from date when he became owner of property, by virtue of family
arrangement and not from date when his grandmother expired. [S.45, 49(1) (iii), 54EC]
Assessee received immovable property belonging to his grandmother, by way of family
settlement, to determine nature of capital gain arising from sale of said property, the
period of holding would commence from date when he became owner of property,
by virtue of family arrangement and not from date when his grandmother expired.
Accordingly the appeal of assessee was dismissed. (AY. 2009-10)
Nitul B. Shah v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 830 / 141 DTR 180 / 181 TTJ 284 (Mum.)(Trib.)

62 S. 2(42B) : Short-term capital gain – Long-term capital asset – Short-term capital

asset – An agreement to purchase property merely creates a right to seek specific
performance. The asset cannot be considered to be “held” from the date of the
agreement so as to constitute long-term capital gains [S.2(14), 2(29A), 2(42A), 45]
The appellant entered into an agreement on 18th May, 1980 with M/s. Shubhada Prints
Pvt. Ltd. for acquiring leasehold rights of immovable property (said land) situated at
Majas Village, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai, for consideration set out therein. The appellant
purchaser was required to file a Suit in this Court being Suit No.1077 of 1981 against
the vendor Shubhada Prints Pvt. Ltd., inter alia, seeking specific performance of
the agreement to assign the leasehold rights in the said land. An earnest money of
` 25,000/ – had been paid at the time of execution of the agreement. During the
pendency of the Suit, the parties arrived at Consent Terms on 11th March, 1988
pursuant to which the defendant – vendor agreed to assign the leasehold rights in
the said land at a lump sum of ` 4,50,000/ – instead of lower consideration originally
payable under the suit agreement. The appellant thereafter sold the said land to one

18
S. 2(47) Transfer

M/s. Associated Estate and Investment Corporation vide agreement dated 29th November,
1988 for a price of ` 37,70,000/ – resulting in capital gain to him. According to the
appellant, he was holding the said land since 1980 i.e. from the date of the agreement
dated 18th May, 1980 and hence the gain was long term in nature. The Assessing
Officer and Tribunal, however, found that the appellant came into possession only
pursuant to the Consent Terms and therefore the amount of consideration received on
sale by the appellant is to be treated as short term capital gain and he was assessed
accordingly. On appeal by the assessee, the High Court HELD dismissing the appeal:
(i) Consequent to the vendor not honouring the agreement dated 18th May, 1980, all that
the appellant had was a right to seek specific performance which he sought to enforce
by filing the suit. The appellant did not have possession of the said land. It is only on
the Consent Terms being filed in Court that the appellant got ownership and possession.
(ii) In our opinion, the assessee-appellant ‘held’ the property only upon the order being
passed upon filing of the Consent Terms in Court on 11th March, 1988. The said land
was sold on 29th November, 1988. Therefore it falls beyond the scope of long term
capital gains and within the province of short term capital gain. Accordingly, we are of
the view that the gains resulting from the sale of the said land in November 1988 would
be a short term capital gain. (AY. 1989-90)
Bindiya H. Malkani v. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 87 / 138 DTR 46 / 287 CTR 184 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 2(42C) : Slump Sale – Transferee had taken over all fixed assets and specified 63
current assets but did not take over loans and liabilities, hence transaction of sale of
fixed and current assets was out of purview of slump sale and direction to compute
the income on the basis of item wise sale was held to be justified. [S. 45, S.50B]
The assessee-company was engaged in the manufacturing of thermoplastic films, sheets
and liners. It sold its manufacturing division to ‘T’ Ltd. The assessee’s case was that the
transaction for transferring the undertaking was not covered within the definition under
section 2(42C). The Assessing Officer disregarded the claim of the assessee and treated
the transaction of sale of undertaking as slump sale.
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that in the case of assessee there was no slump
section 50B will be attracted when an undertaking is transferred for lump sum
consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets and liabilities in
such sales. Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, the Tribunal held that in the instant
case the transferee had taken over all fixed assets, specified current assets but did
not takeover all the loan and liabilities, and, thus, transaction of sale of the fixed and
current assets was out of the purview of slump sale. (AY. 2005-06)
DCIT v. Xpro India Ltd. (2016) 161 ITD 93 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 2(47) : Transfer – Transfer includes extinguishment of rights in capital asset – 64

Surrender of floor area ratio rights in land amounts to transfer – Liable to capital
gains tax. [S. 2(14), 2(47)(ii), 45]
Held, the assessee had relinquished his rights over the floor area and, consequently,
his right in the floor area got extinguished to a certain extent. The seized material also
disclosed that the developer had paid ` 3.15 crores towards such surrender of floor area
ratio and the sum would amount to sale proceeds. Thus, it was a clear case of transfer

19
 Transfer S. 2(47)(v)

within the definition as found in section 2(47) of the Act. The transfer was complete
on the day when the plan was sanctioned and the building of the apartment complex
started since there was no way for the assessee either getting back the floor area ratio
or using it. (AY. 1999-2000)
CIT v. Dinesh D. Ranka (2016) 380 ITR 440 / (2015) 280 CTR 224 (Karn.)(HC)
Editorial: SLP of assessee is rejected Dinesh D. Ranka v. CIT (2016) 239 Taxman 262 (SC)

65 S. 2(47)(v) : Transfer – Any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of

any immoveable property – Land development agreement with developer, possession
of land was not given, cannot be assessed as capital gains. [S.45, 51]
The Tribunal held that the assessee has not given the possession of the land to the
developer in the terms of development agreement as the land was in the occupation of
slum dwellers and no sanction and other permissions were obtained by the developer
which was a precondition for delivery of possession under the said agreement there was
no transfer of land even under section 2(47)(v) in the relevant year so as to give rise
to capital gains more so the agreement was not registered with the Registrar under the
Registration Act. (AY. 2008-09)
ACIT v. Jawaharlal L. Agicha (2016) 161 ITD 429 / (2017) 183 TTJ 176 / 151 DTR 241
(Mum.)(Trib.)

Section 3 : Previous year

66 S. 3 : Previous year – Setting up of business – New business or for a new source of

income, previous year would start from date of setting up of new business or from
date when new source of income has come into existence – Interest – Income from
other sources – Interest income was to be reduced from capital cost of project instead
of taxing as income from other sources. [S.4, 56]
During relevant financial years, assessee’s business undertaking of generation of power
was not set up and plant and machinery was in process of installation. Assessee
contended that its previous year was not started in relevant years, Revenue authorities,
however, opined that assessee’s business was set up in relevant previous year. Tribunal
held that for an assessee, there may be a previous year from 1st April in respect of an
existing business or existing source of income while in case of a new business or a new
source of income which has come into existence in that financial year, previous year
will start from date of setting up of new business or from date when new source of
income has come into existence. Where business of generation of power was not set up
during relevant financial year, interest income from fixed deposit on temporarily placing
of fund with bank, would be reduced from capital cost of project instead of taxing it as
income from other sources. (AY. 2010-11, 2011-12)
Prayagraj Power Generation Co. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 909 / 139 DTR 161 / 180 TTJ
271 (Luck)(Trib.)

20
S. 4 Charge of income-tax

CHAPTER II
BASIS OF CHARGE

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Voluntary subsidies (subvention) paid 67

by a holding company to its loss making subsidiary is to protect the capital investment
of the holding company and is a capital receipt in the hands of the recipient.
Allowing the appeal the Court held that; The subvention received by the assessee, from
its parent Company in Germany in a situation where the assessee, company was making
losses is a capital receipt. (AY. 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02)
Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 144 DTR 370 / (2017) 390
ITR 1 / 291 CTR 22 / 244 Taxman 188 (SC)
Editorial: Decision of Karnataka High Court is reversed Siemens Public Communications
Network Ltd. v. CIT, ITA No. 59, 488 489 of 2007 dt 9-10-2013

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Share capital received for allotment of flats is a 68

capital receipt and not income. The principles of mutuality does not apply to such
transactions. [S. 28(i)]
The Karnataka High Court held, following Shree Nirmal Commercial v. CIT 193 ITR 694
(Bom) and 213 ITR 361 (FB), that share capital received by a housing company from its
shareholders in consideration of allotting area to them is assessable as business profits.
It was also held that the principles of mutuality are not applicable. It was also held that
deposits received from the shareholders for future maintenance is assessable as business
income. On appeal to the Supreme Court HELD:
After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the relevant material,
we modify the order of the High Court by holding that the amount (` 45,84,000/-) on
account of share capital received from the various shareholders ought not to have been
treated as business income. (AY.1996-97)
G. S. Homes & Hotels P. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2016) 141 DTR 201 / 289 CTR 105 (SC)
Editorial : Review petition was dismissed, G. S. Homes & Hotels P. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2017)
291 CTR 240 / 144 DTR 371 (SC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Derived – Subsidy by way of refund of excise duty and 69

interest for setting up a new industrial undertaking is a capital receipt & not taxable
as income. Alternatively, such receipts are “derived” from the industrial undertaking
and are deductible u/s. 80-IB. [S.80-IB]
The assessee, pursuant to the New Industrial Policy announced for the State of J&K,
received excise refund and interest subsidy, etc. which it claimed to be a capital receipt.
In the alternative, it was claimed that the same was eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IB.
The AO, CIT(A) and Tribunal rejected the claim and held the receipts to be revenue on
the ground that the subsidy (i) was for established industry and not to set up a new
one, (ii) it was available after commercial production, (iii) it was recurring in nature,
(iv) it was not for purchasing capital assets and (v) it was for running the business
profitably. On appeal by the assessee, the High Court (333 ITR 335) reversed the orders
of lower authorities and held as follows:
21
 Charge of income-tax S. 4

(i) The ratio of Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253 (SC), Ponni Sugars 306 ITR 392 (SC) and
Mepco Industries 319 ITR 208 (SC) is that to determine whether incentives &
subsidies are revenue or capital receipts, the purpose underlying the incentives is
the determinative test. If the object of the subsidy scheme is to enable the assessee
to run the business more profitably then the receipt is on revenue account. On
the other hand, if the object of the subsidy scheme is to enable the assessee to
set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy
was on capital account. It is the object for which the subsidy/assistance is given
which determines the nature of the incentive/subsidy. The form or the mechanism
through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant;
(ii) On facts, the object of the subsidy scheme was (a) to accelerate industrial
development in J&K and (b) generate employment in J&K. Such incentives,
designed to achieve a public purpose, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be
construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of assesses alone.
It cannot be construed as mere production and trade incentives;
(iii) The fact that the incentives were available only after commencement of commercial
production cannot be viewed in isolation. The other factors which were weighed
by the Tribunal are also decisive to determine the character of the incentives/
subsidies in view of the stated objects of the subsidy scheme;
(iv) Question whether the subsidy receipts are eligible u/s. 80-IB were not decided.
On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court HELD dismissing the appeal:
The issue raised in these appeals is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this
Court in “Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.”,
reported in (2008) 9 SCC 337, or in the alternate, in “Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Meghalaya Steels Ltd.”, reported in (2016) 3 SCALE 192 (383 ITR 217 (SC)). The appeals
are, therefore, dismissed.(AY. 2005-06)
CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys (2016) 138 DTR 36 / 287 CTR 459 (SC)

70 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Sums collected towards apprehended sales tax liability

– Refundable – Cannot be assessable as income.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the amounts collected by the assessee from
its customers towards apprehended sales tax liability on sale of bottles and packing
materials was not taxable because it was refundable. (AY. 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91)
CIT v. Khoday Breweries Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 1 / 243 Taxman 229 (SC)

71 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Income was assessed in respective individual shares

hence income cannot be assessed as an Association of Persons. [S. 260A]
High Court held that where the view expressed by Tribunal was consistent with
materials placed on record, no substantial questioning of law would arise. The Tribunal
on the facts of the case had held that where no income accrued to assessee-AOP but
to respective constituents of AOP in their individual capacities, then assessee was not
liable to be taxed.
CIT v. Rajdeep & PMCC Infrastructure (2016) 73 taxmann.com 255 (Bom.)(HC)
Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Rajdeep & PMCC Infrastructure Ltd. (2016)
242 Taxman 181 (SC)

22
S. 4 Charge of income-tax

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Compassionate appointment given to dependent of 72

deceased employee is not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’ and, therefore, amount received on
such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under
Motor Vehicle Act [S. 192, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S. 168]
Dismissing the appeal the Court held that compassionate appointment given to
dependent of deceased employee cannot be termed as ‘Pecuniary Advantage’ under
periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, amount received on such appointment
is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under Motor Vehicle Act.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakhwinder Kaur (2016) 236 Taxman 558 (P& H)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Money deposited by public with 73

assessee was capital in nature
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that Money deposited by public
with assessee was capital in nature. (AY. 1988-89, 1990-91)
CIT v. Sahara Investment India Ltd. (2016) 242 Taxman 121 (All.)(HC)
Editorial: SLP of revenue was dismissed CIT v. Sahara Investment India Ltd. (2016) 242
Taxman 106 (SC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Grant received by corporation from 74

Central Government and State Government for restoration of tourist sites damaged by
tsunami was to be regarded as capital receipt. [S.28(i)]
Dismissing the appeal of revenue, the Court held that; grant received by assessee-
corporation from Central Government and State Government for restoration of tourist
sites damaged by tsunami was to be regarded as capital receipt. (AY. 2005-06, 2006-07)
CIT v. Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (2016) 241 Taxman 441 / 288
CTR 444 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Amount was received by trust and not by individual 75

trustee in his individual capacity, assessee was not liable to pay tax on assumed
income [Wealth-tax Act, 1957, S.3]
Trustee purchased lottery ticket with amount withdrawn from trust account. Amount
received on winning lottery was distributed amongst all beneficiaries of trust.
Beneficiaries paid taxes individually on their respective share of income, even TDS was
shown in balance sheet of trust account. Since amount was received by trust and not
by individual trustee in his individual capacity, assessee was not liable to pay tax on
assumed income. Since income of Trust is accepted, the appellant cannot be assessed
under wealth tax Act, 1957
Bahadursingh T. Waghela v. WTO (2016) 243 Taxman 86 / (2017) 147 DTR 101 / 292 CTR
514 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Interest from non-performing assets was held to be not 76

assessable. [S.145]
Dismissing the appeal of revenue the Court held that once a particular asset was shown
to be a non-performing asset, then the assumption was that it was not yielding any
revenue. When it was not yielding any revenue, the question of showing that revenue
and paying tax would not arise. It was evident that the mere nomenclature adopted
23
 Charge of income-tax S. 4

with reference to the bad loans and advances receivable, would refer to all non-
performing assets of any nature, of whatever category. Hence interest receivable from
non-performing assets, bad and doubtful debts though the actual expression used was
interest payable and not reflected in the profit and loss account, could be deducted.
(AY. 2009-10)
CIT v. Siddeshwar Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 588 / 240 Taxman 588 (Karn.)
(HC)
CIT v. Sindagi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR / 240 Taxman 588 (Karn.)
(HC)

77 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Income – Sale of property – Part of consideration unpaid

– Notional interest not chargeable.
Court held that unless the contract was taken into account and the terms and conditions
of sale were examined, it could not be said with any amount of certainty whether the
contract between the parties provided for payment of interest or was silent as regards
the liability of the buyer to pay interest or there was any stipulation not to pay interest.
There was no room for speculation in that regard. There was nothing in the orders
of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) the Tribunal to show that the
subsidiary (HRL) did not use its funds for the running of the hotel or for the purpose of
providing for facilities for the growth of tourism in India nor was there any evidence to
show that any part of the money due and owing by HRL to the assessee was spent for
any personal business of any of the directors. In that view of the matter, the addition
made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the
Tribunal were not sustainable. (AY. 2003-04)
New Kenilworth Hotel P. Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 201 / (2017) 292 CTR 336 (Cal.)(HC)

78 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Amount received under compromise decree in connection

with dispute regarding leave and licence agreement – No details regarding dispute was
furnished – Tribunal is justified in assessing the amount.
Dismissing the appeal of assessee the Court held that the terms of agreement dated
September 1, 1989 revealed that it was a leave and licence agreement. Within a few days
from the date of entering into the agreement, a suit was filed before the Small Causes
Court at Bombay which ended with the passing of the compromise decree on the terms
and conditions as mutually agreed between the parties to the suit. The appellant in the
income-tax proceedings had relied on that decree. However, as evident from the order
of the Special Bench in the assessee’s own case, though sought for repeatedly by the
Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals) and the Special Bench of the Tribunal, the
assessee failed to file a copy of the plaint. In such facts and circumstances, the Special
Bench was justified in drawing an adverse presumption since as a Tribunal specifically
adjudicating revenue matters, it had the authority to examine the plaint which led to
the passing of the compromise decree to investigate the real nature of the issue involved
in the suit. The written notes of submission filed by the appellant were silent why
the plaint was not filed. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount was
assessable. (AY. 1998-99)
Sushil Kumar Co. v. CIT (2016) 387 ITR 192 (Cal.)(HC)

24
S. 4 Charge of income-tax

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Mutuality – Amounts received by the assessee society 79

from its members for allotment of a tenement is not taxable on the grounds of
mutuality.
Dismissing the appeal of revenue, the High Court has noted the three tests of mutuality
laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club v. CIT (2013) 350
ITR 509 (SC). HC observed that all these three tests were satisfied in the given
case. (1) Revenue had not contended that there was absence of complete identity of
the contributors and participants of the Society. (2) Actions of the Society were in
furtherance of the object of the Society. It was not the case of the Revenue that building
tenements and giving it to its members was not the object of the Society. (3) There was
no scope for profiteering in the present facts, as the members had not purchased the flat
but had only got a right to occupy a tenement allotted by the Society. HC held that no
substantial question of law arose on these facts. (AY. 1998-99 to 2001-02)
CIT v. Shree Parleshwar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2016) 138 DTR 145 / 287 CTR
468 / 71 taxmann.com 179 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Interest on fixed deposits-addition of interest accrued of 80

Rs. 1.27 crore – Held, the impugned entries were journal entries for booking interest
accrued for the purpose of closing of quarterly results – Held, entries were reversed
and interest actually received offered to tax – Held, no suppression of income.
The AO found that during the year, interest income of ` 6.22 crores had accrued to the
assessee, out of which only ` 4.95 crores had been offered to tax and ` 1.27 crores had
not been offered to tax. Therefore, the said amount of ` 1.27 crore was added to the
income of the assessee. CIT(A) and ITAT found that interest on time deposits shown by
the assessee in the accounts on accrual basis was for the purpose of closing of quarterly
results. The accrual entries made in the accounts were subsequently reversed and the
actual interest income earned by the assessee was duly accounted for. The entries
totalling to ` 1.27 crores were memorandum entries and had no relation with the actual
interest earned. There was no suppression of income accrued on the fixed deposits and
the entire income received had been offered to tax. High Court held that the finding
returned by the CIT(A) and ITAT were purely factual and there was nothing perverse
in the same. (AY. 2008-09)
CIT v. DLF Hilton Hotels (2016) 240 Taxman 495 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Entertainment tax subsidy – Subsidy 81

granted under scheme to promote construction of multiplex theatre and to boost
tourism – Receipt is capital in nature. [S. 28(i)]
Dismissing the appeal of revenue the court held that the purpose of the scheme
formulated by the State Government was to give incentive to multiplex units which
were found to be highly capital incentive and the object of subsidy was to promote
construction of multiplex theatre complexes and to boost tourism and therefore, the
receipt of subsidy would be on capital account.
Dy.CIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 626 (Guj.)(HC)
Editorial : SLP was granted to the Department CIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd [2016] 380 ITR 3
(St.)

25
 Charge of income-tax S. 4

82 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Income from sale of carbon credits

– Carbon credits is not a by-product of business – Capital receipt. [S.2(24), 28(i), 263]
Carbon credit is not an offshoot of business, but an offshoot of environmental concerns.
Income received by sale of carbon credits is a capital receipt. Revision of order was held
to be not justified. (AY. 2009-10)
CIT v. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd. (2016) 385 ITR 592 / 240 Taxman 514 /
287 CTR 147 (Karn.)(HC)
Editorial: Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 37 ITR 106 (Bang.)(Trib.)
is affirmed.

83 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Sum received by assessee from ex-

husband on sale of property – Finding by Tribunal that money received by assessee
amount to lump sum alimony – Department not preferring appeal against finding of
Tribunal indicating Department satisfied with finding – Lump sum alimony in nature
of capital receipt and not taxable. [S. 2(24), 260A]
Sale proceeds were received by the assessee on account of alimony from her former
husband, it was open to the assessee to contend that the receipt was capital in nature
and therefore not taxable. When the alternative case, which the assessee could have
made, was not only found against her but also put forward as an answer to her claim,
it was not improper to grant her the benefit on the basis that alimony was not taxable.
When the Department did not prefer an appeal against the finding of the Tribunal
that the payment was “on account of alimony”, the Department must be deemed to be
satisfied by such finding. Therefore, it was to be concluded that lump sum alimony
received by the assessee was in the nature of a capital receipt and was not taxable. (AY.
1997-98)
Shrimati Roma Sengupta v. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 663 / 238 Taxman 682 / 288 CTR 234 /
139 DTR 26 (Cal.)(HC)

84 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Mesne profits (Amount received

from a person in wrongful possession of property) is a capital receipt and not
chargeable to tax either as income or as “book profits” u/s. 115JB. As the department
has implicitly accepted Narang Overseas v. ACIT (2008) 100 ITD (Mum) (SB), it
cannot file an appeal on the issue in the case of other assesses. [S. 115JB, 260A]
The High Court had to consider two questions in an appeal filed by the Department:
(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal
was correct in holding that mesne profits are capital receipts in the hands of the
assessee and not revenue receipts chargeable to tax?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal
was correct in holding that mesne profits, cannot be part of book profit u/s. 115JB,
as it was held as “capital assets?”.
HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:
(i) The Tribunal has held that the mesne profits received by the assessee for the
unauthorized occupation of its premises from Central Bank of India is a receipt of
capital nature and thus not taxable. To reach the above conclusion, the impugned
order placed reliance upon the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in Narang

26
S. 4 Charge of income-tax

Overseas Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT 100 ITD (Mum) S.B. The issue before the Special Bench
in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was whether the mesne profits received by
an assessee is revenue or capital in nature. The Special Bench, in its order placed
reliance upon the definition of mesne profits in Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 which reads as under:
“Mesne profits of property means those profits which the person in wrongful
possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence
have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not
include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession.”
On the basis of above, it held that any amount received from a person in wrongful
possession of its property, would be mesne profits and it is capital in nature.
(ii) We find that the issue before the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Narang Overseas
Pvt. Ltd. was to determine the character of mesne profits being either capital or
revenue in nature. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Narang Overseas Pvt.
Ltd held that the same is capital in nature. There is no doubt that the issue
arising herein is also with regard to the character of mesne profits received by
the assessee. In this case also, the amounts are received by the assessee from a
person in wrongful possession of its property i.e., after the relationship of landlord
and tenant has come to an end. Once the Special Bench order of the Tribunal in
Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. has taken a view on the character of mesne profits,
then unless the Revenue challenges the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal
it would be unfair of the Revenue to pick and choose assessees where it would
follow the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Narang Overseas Pvt.
Ltd. The least that is expected of the State which prides itself on Rule of Law is
that it would equally apply the law to all assessees’s.
(iii) We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the question raised
for our consideration. We are not entertaining the present appeal on the limited
ground that the Revenue must adopt a uniform stand in respect of all assessees.
This is more so as the issue of law is settled by the decision of the Special Bench
of the Tribunal in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd., (supra). The fact that even after the
dismissal of its Appeal (L) No.1791 of 2008 for non-removal of office objections
on 25th June, 2009, no steps have been taken by the Revenue to have the appeal
restored, is evidence enough of the Revenue having accepted the decision of the
Special Bench of the Tribunal in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the question as
framed in the present facts does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
(AY. 2008-09)
CIT v. Goodwill Theatres Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 294 / 241 Taxman 352 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Merely because PAN of Karta was mentioned in TDS 85

Certificate could not be a reason to tax the rental income in the hands of Karta
especially when, in all the years except the present year the Department has not
challenged the taxability of the said income in the hands of HUF.
Assessee was an individual and also Karta of his HUF. He declared rental income from
a property belonging to HUF as income of HUF. AO assessed said income in the hands
of the assessee on ground that TDS certificate given by tenant mentioned PAN of the

27
 Charge of income-tax S. 4

assessee. High Court held that income from the property was declared by the assessee
as income of HUF for all the years and has been accepted by the Department except in
the current year, therefore the stand taken by the AO in current year was not justified.
High Court directed the AO to verify the rental agreement and decide the issue as per
law. (AY. 2005-06)
M. Sathyanarayana v. ITO (2016) 238 Taxman 79 (Karn.)(HC)

86 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Diversion by overriding title – Payments made under

legal obligation cannot be assessed as income. [S.260A]
Dismissing the appeal of Revenue the Court held that;Tribunal as well as High Court
for earlier years in assessee’s own case allowed the claim, hence payments made out of
amounts relatable to retired/ deceased partners under the legal obligation by virtue of
partnership deed to ex-partner/s or their legal heirs/ executors, should not be treated as
its income. (AY.2008-09)
CIT v. Kanga & Co. (2016) 133 DTR 257 (Bom.)(HC)

87 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Unutilised MODVAT credit – Not income – Interest on

refund is liable to tax. [S.145]
It is clear from the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Indo Nippon
Chemicals Co. Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 275 (SC) that the unavailed Modvat credit cannot
be construed as income and there is no liability to pay tax on such unavailed Modvat
credit. Interest on refund is liable to tax. (AY. 2001-02 to 2004-05)
Dy.CIT v. Wipro Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 179 / 236 Taxman 209 / 282 CTR 346 (Karn.)(HC)

88 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – compensation received for

cancellation of a sale deed of immovable property is held to be capital receipt –
Revenue cannot be permitted to shift its stand from one forum to another. [S. 2(24),
10(3), 45, 56]
Allowing the appeal of revenue the Court held that the Revenue cannot be permitted to
shift its stand from one forum to another. The consistent case of the Revenue is to be
tested at various levels for its correctness. It is possible that in the interregnum there
might be decisions of the Supreme Court which might support or negate the case of
the Revenue. That would then have to be taken to its logical end. In the circumstances,
the Court is not prepared to permit the Revenue to urge a new plea for the first time
in this Court. Having held that it could not be in the nature of capital gain it was not
open to the Revenue to seek to bring it to a tax under the Revenue receipt that the
above sum of ` 20 lakhs constituted revenue receipt in the hands of the assessees. Not a
receipt taxable under Section 10(3). The settled legal position is that all receipts do not
constitute income. For a receipt sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the
Revenue to prove that it is within the taxing provision. Among the earlier decisions of
the Supreme Court is Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) where
it was held “Whether a receipt is liable to be treated as income depends very largely
upon the facts and circumstances of each case; it is open to the income-tax authorities
to raise an inference that a receipt by an assembly is assessable income where he fails
to disclose satisfactorily the source and the nature of the receipt. But here the source of

28
S. 4 Charge of income-tax

income was disclosed by the appellant and there was no dispute about the truth of the
disclosure. Examined in light of the legal position explained in the above decisions, the
Court is of the view that as far as the present case is concerned, the sum of ` 20 lakhs
received by the assessees was in the context of the cancellation of the sale certificate
and the sale deed executed in their favour in relation to an immovable property and
neither assessee was dealing in immovable property as part of his business. While it
could if at all be said to be in the nature of a capital receipt, what is relevant for the
present case is that the Revenue has been unable to make out a case for treating the
said receipt as of a casual and non-recurring nature that could be brought to tax under
Section 10(3) read with Section 56 of the Act. Following the decision in Cadell Weaving
Mill (supra), there can be no manner of doubt that what is in the nature of capital
receipt, cannot be sought to be brought to tax by resorting to S.10(3) read with S. 56 of
the Act. (AY.1993-94, 1995-96)
Girish Bansal v. UOI (2016) 384 ITR 161 (Delhi)(HC)
Gynendra Bansal v. UOI (2016) 384 ITR 161 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Mutuality – The contributions made by the members to 89

the assessee cannot be a subject matter of tax merely because the part of its excess of
income over expenditure is invested in mutual funds.
The contributions made by the members to the assessee cannot be a subject matter
of tax merely because the part of its excess of income over expenditure is invested in
mutual funds. The concept of Mutual concerns not being subject to tax is based on the
principle of no man can profit out of itself. Therefore the test to be satisfied before an
association can be classified as a Mutual concern are complete identity between the
members i.e. contributors and the participants, the action of the mutual concern must
be in furtherance of its objectives and there must be no scope of profiteering by the
contributors from a fund. (AY. 2007-08)
CIT v. Air Cargo Agents Association of India (2016) 135 DTR 169 / 286 CTR 340 / 239
Taxman 212 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Accrual of income – Mercantile system of accounting – 90

Waiver of income recoverable from person facing financial difficulties [S. 145]
Even in mercantile system of accounting an item would be regarded as accrued income
only if there is certainty of receiving it and not when it has been waived, therefore
non recognition of income on the ground that the income had not really accrued as the
realisability of the principal outstanding itself was doubtful, is legally correct under the
mercantile system of accounting, when the same is in accordance with ASI notified by
the Government and the provisions of Section 145(1) are subject to, inter alia, mandate
of ASI which also prescribes that ‘Accounting policies adopted by an assessee should
be such so as to represent a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the business,
profession or vocation in the financial statements prepared and presented on the basis
of such accounting policies.’ In the name of compliance with Section 145(1), it cannot
be open to anyone to force adoption of accounting policies which result in a distorted
view of the affairs of the business. Therefore, even under the mercantile method of
accounting, and, on peculiar facts of instant case, the assessee was justified in following

29
 Charge of income-tax S. 4

the policy of not recognizing these interest revenues till the point of time when the
uncertainty to realize the revenues vanished. The Tribunal further referred to the
fact that the various resolutions which The decision rendered by the Tribunal in the
impugned order is a decision on facts and nothing has been shown to us which would
warrant interference by this Court on account of any finding being perverse or arbitrary.
(ITA No. 2251 of 2013 with 2360 of 2013, dt. 05.04.2016)(AY. 2007-08, 2009-10)
CIT v. Neon Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.)(HC); www.itatonline.org

91 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or Revenue – Compensation received in

connection with termination of share purchase agreement to be taxed as Revenue
receipt.
The assessee-a company, paid certain amount as earnest money to purchase shares
under SPA (Special Purchase Agreement) from shareholders of Zydus. Zydus was
engaged in the same business as the assessee. The shares of Zydus had been pledged
to Cadila. In the event of sale of shares by the seller, Cadila had the right of first
refusal. The SPA between the provided that where Cadila was to exercise their right to
purchase the shares under the right of first refusal, the purchaser would terminate the
SPA. As per the SAP, the sellers had no right to terminate the agreement. Subsequently,
the sellers expressed their inability to sell their shares. The assessee entered into a
supplementary agreement with the seller to terminate the SPA. The supplementary
provided that the seller would pay the assessee the earnest money paid by the assessee,
interest, penalty and compensation for termination of SPA. The assessee claimed the
compensation amount as a capital receipt. The Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s
claim and reassessed income by claiming the same as revenue receipt. The CIT(A), and
Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
The High Court observed that the intent was not to purchase the shares of Zydus, but
to takeover its business for expansion and accordingly the compensation was for the
loss of profit and not for the impairment of a source of income. Therefor the High Court
confirmed the order of the lower authorities in holding the compensation as revenue
income. (AY. 2008-09)
Avantor Performance Materials India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 685 / 237 Taxman 603 /
282 CTR 494 / 130 DTR 33 (HP)(HC)

92 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or Revenue – Money to be used in purchase of

plant and machinery temporarily placed in fixed deposits – Inextricably linked with
setting up of plant – Interest on fixed deposits – Capital receipt. [S. 2(24)]
Held, the test that is required to be employed is whether the activity which is taken
up for setting up of the business and the funds which are garnered are inextricably
connected to the setting up of the business. The findings of fact had been returned
by the Commissioner (Appeals) and had been confirmed by the Tribunal to the effect
that the funds were inextricably connected with the setting up of the power plant of
the assessee. The Revenue had also not been able to point out any perversity in such
finding and, therefore, interest earned by the assessee from fixed deposits in the pre-
commencement period. (AY. 2009-10)
PCIT v. Facor Power Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 474 / 237 Taxman 613 / 283 CTR 141 / 130 DTR
281 (Delhi)(HC)
30
S. 4 Charge of income-tax

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Accrual of income – Acquisition of land – Enhanced 93

compensation – Award disputed in appeal before High Court – Right to receive not
crystallised – Status – Whether assessment in status of individual or Hindu undivided
family – Disputed questions of law and fact – Matter remanded. [S. 2(31)(i), 2(31)(ii)]
On appeal The CIT(A) annulled the assessment made in the status of individual. The
Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue
on the merits. On appeal: Held, that the issue arising in the appeal raised a mixed
question of law and fact and required to be remanded to the Tribunal to decide afresh.
Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted
to the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue afresh after hearing the parties and by passing a
speaking order in accordance with law.(AY. 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03)
Raj Kumar Tewatia v. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 110 (P&H)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Excise duty refund in terms of 94

new industrial policy and concessions formulated by Central Government for State of
Jammu and Kashmir was held to be capital receipt.
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal held that; Excise duty refund in
terms of new industrial policy and concessions formulated by Central Government for
State of Jammu and Kashmir was held to be capital receipt. (AY. 2012-13)
DCIT v. Singla Cables. (2016) 157 ITD 617 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Amount received from developer 95

as corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment was held to
be capital receipt and not assessable as income.[S.2(24)(vi), 56]
Allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal held that ; amount received by the
assessee as a flat owner in a housing society from developer as corpus fund towards
hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount would be in nature
of capital receipt simplicitor not includible in income as per section 2(24)(vi). (AY. 2007-08)
Jitendra Kumar Soneja v. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 269 (SMC)(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Compensation received upon 96

settlement of a trademark dispute in which trademark itself had been cancelled would
be capital receipt and not taxable as business income [S.28(va)(b)]
Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that; compensation received for
losing right to use trademark could not be bought to tax as business income in terms
of S.28(va)(b), as the said section only deals with payment received for not sharing
trademark etc., while in instant case, sharing or otherwise was not possible as trademark
itself had been cancelled; said receipt was capital receipt. (AY. 2008-09 to 2010-11)
Orient Blackswan (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 159 ITD 944 / 181 TTJ 124 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Interest awarded by Court on motor accident 97

compensation is a capital receipt not taxable as income – Tribunal directed the CBDT
to issue appropriate circular to avoid hardship to the citizens. [S.56(2)(viii), 145A]
Allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal held that ;compensation for motor
accident received from the Supreme Court is a capital receipts it is not taxable. Interest

31
 Charge of income-tax S. 4

awarded by Court on said compensation in value of compensation money from day

when compensation becomes payable to day when it is actually paid is also a capital
receipt not liable to tax. Tribunal also directed the CBDT to issue appropriate circular
to avoid hardship to the citizens. (AY.2012-13)
Urvi Chirag Sheth v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 199 / 179 TTJ 245 / 136 DTR 345 / 51 ITR 491
(Ahd.)(Trib.)

98 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Compensation arising out of a

settlement agreement was to be regarded as capital receipt, not liable to tax. [S. 43(1)]
The assessee purchased the plant and machinery from a company based in UK. The
plant and machineries did not function as per the performance parameters set out
by the machine supplier. So the assessee filed a claim for compensation on the said
UK Company in terms of the agreement for the purchase of plant and machinery.
The Assessing Officer treated the amount to be a reduction from cost of the machine
and thus recomputed the depreciation allowable to assessee. In appeal CIT(A) held
that the compensation was capital in nature. On appeal by revenue, dismissing the
appeal the Tribunal held that ;the compensation paid was neither in form of discount
nor against the price nor was it in the nature of subsidy nor was it in the nature of
any reimbursement. It was not even compensation for recouping any damage caused
to the plant and machinery. Thus, none of the conditions specified in section 43(1)
for deducting the actual cost from value of the machines were applicable to the
compensation. Therefore, compensation arising out of a settlement agreement was to be
regarded as capital receipt, not liable to tax. (AY. 2005-06)
DCIT v. Xpro India Ltd. (2016) 161 ITD 93 (Kol.)(Trib.)

99 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – One time Entrance Fees received from
members were in nature of lifetime membership fees was held to be capital receipt.
Right from the year 1925 onwards, Entrance Fees has been accepted as capital receipt
by passing orders under section 143(3). Further, the jurisdictional High Court held that
any sum paid by a member to acquire the rights of a club was a capital receipt. If the
issue is analyzed on the principle of consistency, in earlier years, identical claim of the
assessee was decided in favour of the assessee by accepting the entrance fees as capital
receipt, and therefore, unless and until contrary facts are brought on record by the
Revenue, no U-turn is permissible. (AY. 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10)
ACIT v. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. (2016) 52 ITR 235 (Mum.)(Trib.)

100 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Sales tax and excise duty subsidy
received from State for purpose of industrialisation is capital receipt. [S.28(i)]
Assessee engaged in business of manufacturing of CTVs, PCBs, and Washing Machines
etc. received subsidy by way of sales tax benefit under scheme of Gujarat Government
for setting up unit in Gujarat and as excise duty benefit under scheme of Government
of India. Assessee claimed the same as capital receipt. AO treated as revenue receipt.
ITAT by following decision of Dy. CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2004] 88 ITD 273
(Mum.)(SB), held that sales tax and excise duty subsidy received from State for purpose
of industrialisation are capital receipts. (AY. 2006-07)
ACIT v. Genus Electrotech Ltd. (2016) 161 ITD 644 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
32
S. 4 Charge of income-tax

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Power subsidy received for setting 101
up a new industrial unit in backward area is a capital receipt. [S.28(i)]
Power subsidy received from State Government under Power Intensive Industries
Scheme, 2005, for setting up a new industrial unit in backward area is capital receipt
hence not liable to tax. (AY. 2006-07 and 2007-08)
Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 161 ITD 1 / (2017) 183 TTJ 304 / 145 DTR
177 (TM)(Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Hindu undivided family – Property belong individual 102

before his death and died intestate without execution any will – Income cannot be
assessed in the hands of the – Hindu undivided family [S. 171]
On facts the Tribunal held that; property belong individual before his death and died
intestate without execution any will, therefore income cannot be assessed in the hands
of the Hindu undivided family. Accordingly the addition which was made in the
assessment of HUF was directed to be deleted. (AY. 1992-93)
B. D. Gupta & Sons v. ITO (2015) 70 SOT 16 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Mutuality – Transfer fee and non-occupancy charges 103

received from the members was held to be not taxable.
Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that Transfer fee and non –
occupancy charges received from the members was held to be not taxable. Followed CIT
v. Darbhanga Mansion CHS Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 443 (Bom.)(HC) & Mittal Court Premises
Co-operative Society Ltd v. ITO (2010) 320 ITR 414 (Bom.)(HC) (ITA No. 3566/Mum/2014,
dt. 15.01.2016))(AY.2009-10)
Land End Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Compensation for breach of promise 104

to provide land to the assessee is not compensation for loss of profits but is for injury
caused to the profit making apparatus. Such compensation is a capital receipt not
chargeable to tax. [S. 28(i)]
Allowing the appeal of assessee the Tribunal held that Compensation for breach of
promise to provide land to the assessee is not compensation for loss of profits but is for
injury caused to the profit making apparatus. Such compensation is a capital receipt not
chargeable to tax.(ITA No. 5054/Del/2011, dt. 12.08.2016)(AY. 2007-08)
Aerens Development and Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Capital gains – Computation 105

– Compensation received by flat owner from builder for hardship caused due to
redevelopment of the building is a non-taxable receipt and has to be reduced from
the cost of the flat. Amount received from builder to meet rental costs during the
redevelopment is also not taxable as income and amount spent on rent has to be
allowed. [S. 2(24)(vi), 4, 45, 48, 56]
Compensation received by flat owner from builder for hardship caused due to
redevelopment of the building is a non-taxable receipt, However tribunal observed that
“in our considered opinion and as learned counsel for the assessee fairly agrees, the

33
 Charge of income-tax S. 4

impugned receipt ends up reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset, i.e. flat, and,
therefore, the same will be taken into account as such, as and when occasion arises
for computing capital gains in respect of the said asset. Subject to these observations,
grievance of the assessee is upheld.”
Tribunal has also held that; the issue regarding addition of ` 8,55,800. In fact, this
amount was given by Developer for paying rent while development of the project was
taking place. In fact, assessee submitted before me that he has made expenditure of
` 6,80,000/- towards rent while development activity of the project was taken place. So,
Assessing officer is directed to allow the claim of assessee to same extent because it is
nothing but compensation received by assessee for paying rent. This cannot be said to
be income of assessee. (ITA No. 291/Mum/2015, dt. 12.08.2016)(AY. 2007-08)
Jitendra Kumar Soneja v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org

106 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Accrual of income – Assessee received advance on a

condition to refund the same in event of not starting of film – Assessee not holding
amount in his own right – Not to be treated as income.
The assessee received an advance from Tips Industries Limited (‘TIL’). The AO added the
amount to the total income of the assessee holding that since the assessee was following
the cash system of accounting, any income becomes assessable only when it is received
and thus the advance received is also a receipt in the nature of income irrespective of
the fact that when and how services are going to be performed. On appeal to Tribunal,
it was held that the assessee received the amount from TIL for accepting the assignment
to work as director for 2 forthcoming films. It was specifically mentioned as advance
and not as remuneration and in the event of the first film not starting, the assessee
was required to refund the advance forthwith to TIL. The addition made by AO was
not sustainable in law because the amount is being still held by the assessee on behalf
of TIL and not on his own right as per the agreed terms of conditions as agreed, vide
mutual understanding dated February 5, 2008, as the assessee will be deemed to
appropriate the said amount or hold the same amount in his own right only on the
commencement of the film and till then the assessee is holding the said amount of
` 25,00,000/- on behalf of Tips Industries Ltd. which is refundable in case of non-
starting of the film. Therefore the addition made by AO was to be deleted. (AY 2008-09)
Satish B. Kaushik v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 739 (Mum.)(Trib.)

107 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Accrual – Carbon Emission Reduction Certificate (CERs)

is taxable only when the right to receive consideration for transfer of these CERs is
quantified and crystallized.
The Tribunal held that income from Carbon Emission Reduction Certificate (CERs)
is taxable only when the right to receive consideration for transfer of these CERs is
quantified and crystallized. It is not the case of the AO that the sale was made in the
relevant previous year. Once the sale is not effected in the relevant previous year, there
cannot be any good reasons to bring the CER value to tax in this assessment year.
Accordingly, the value of CERs even though quantifiable, cannot be brought to tax by
the reason of accrual simpliciter. (AY. 2009-10)
Dy. CIT v. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (2016) 177 TTJ 394 / 133 DTR 113 / (2017)
162 ITD 18 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
34
S. 4 Charge of income-tax

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Income does not accrue if the debtor is in a precarious 108
financial position and recovery is doubtful. [S. 145]
The Tribunal held that income did not accrue in the hands of the assessee owing to the
precarious financial condition of the debtor notwithstanding that, services were rendered
and the income was recorded in the books of account of the assessee during the relevant
year and bad debts were claimed in subsequent years when the dispute was settled.( ITA
No.39/07, ITA No.650/07 & CO No.122/07, dt. 30.10.2015) (AY. 2002-03)
Bechtel International Inc v. DDIT (Mum.)(Trib.);www.itatonline.org

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Subsidy granted to set up a windmill project is a capital 109

receipt. [S. 41(1), 43(1), 50]
Subsidy granted to set up a wind project is a capital receipt. The subsidy cannot
be reduced under Explanation 10 to S. 43(1) from the cost of the assets acquired
though 100% depreciation is allowed on the cost of the assets. The subsidy is also not
assessable either u/s. 41(1) or u/s 50.( ITA No. 3473/M/2013, dt. 26.11.2015) (AY. 2008-
09)
Uni Deritend Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Mutuality – Co-Operative housing Society – TDR 110

Premium received from members is not liable to tax.
CIT(A) relied on ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499/M/2011) & A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA
No. 500/M/2011) and held that TDR Premium received by Society from its members
was not covered by principle of Mutuality. The Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 reversed the
order of Learned CIT(A) and held that TDR premium will be covered by the principle of
mutuality. Tribunal followed the order of High Court in ITA No.427 / 428 / 590 of 2012.
(ITA No. 66 & 67 /Mum/2014. Dt. 09.03.2015) (AY. 1995-96, 2008-09)
Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. CIT (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org
Editorial: Order of Tribunal, in Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society v. ACIT (2013) 27 ITR 494
(Mum) (Trib.) is no longer good law, High court has set a side the order of Tribunal.
Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg Society Ltd. v. CIT ITA NO 328 OF 2014 dt. 22-8-2016)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Mercantile system of accounting AIR information – 111

Interest credited – tax deducted by payer – Liable to be offered as income though not
received during the year.[S.5, 56, 145]
Assessee, in his return of income, had not shown certain amount of interest received
from a party on which payer had also deducted tax at source on ground that he actually
did not receive such interest. AO on the basis of AIR information added the interest
income as income from other sources. CIT (A) affirmed the view of AO. On appeal the
Tribunal held that since assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, once
interest amount had been credited to assessee and tax had been deducted by payer,
assessee could not take plea of not offering it as income on ground that he had not
actually received same. However, if said amount was treated as income of assessee, then
credit of TDS had to be given. (AY. 2009-10)
Girish M. Kothari v. JCIT (2016) 157 ITD 451 (Mum.)(Trib.)

35
 Charge of income-tax S. 4

112 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Accrual – Advance professional fees received from clients
– Not taxable as income. [S. 145]
Assessee receiving advances from clients to meet expenses for and on behalf of
its clients. Assessee keeping advance receipts in separate ledger account. Assessee
transferring professional fees to Profit and Loss account and carry forward credit balance
to next year as sundry creditors. Professional advance received is not taxable in the
hands of the assessee.(AY. 2009-10)
Vipin Malik v. ACIT (2016) 45 ITR 589 (Delhi)(Trib.)

113 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Increase or decrease in liability on account of fluctuation

in foreign exchange – Capital account not taxable. [S. 263]
In case of issue of FCCB, increase or decrease in liability on account of fluctuation in
foreign exchange as on date of balance sheet would be on capital account and, therefore,
any gain or loss is not taxable (AY. 2008-09)
Subex Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 938 / 182 TTJ 846 (Bang.)(Trib.)

114 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Foreign Exchange gain – Arose due to restatement of

loan balance at the end of the year – Assessee credited such gain in its P&L a/c – Loan
has been utilized only on revenue account – Foreign exchange gain is taxable – Since
in subsequent years, foreign exchange loss has not been claimed as deduction, AO is
directed to allow deduction of notional loss in subsequent years to be in consonance
with aforesaid finding.
Borrowings were made from foreign shareholder and was utilized by advancing to its
subsidiary in ordinary course of business. Loan agreement clearly specifies that the
borrowings are meant for general corporate purpose. Held that even if assessee did not
receive interest income from such loan, it would not shift the business purpose. Foreign
Exchange gain arose due to restatement of loan balance at the end of the year at the
prevailing exchange rate. Assessee credited such gain in its P&L a/c. Amount advance
is meant for business purpose of the assessee and has to be construed as amounts lent
in ordinary course of business. Even if no interest income is received on such advance,
resultant exchange gain restated at the end of the year has to be construed as a revenue
receipt. However, in subsequent years, assessee has incurred foreign exchange loss and
has not claimed it as a deduction since notional in nature. Since, to be in consonance
and take consistence stand AO is directed to grant deduction of notional foreign
exchange loss in subsequent years. (AY. 2004-05)
ITO v. UMT Investment Ltd. (2016) 176 TTJ 53 / 136 DTR 39 (Kol.)(Trib.)

115 S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue-Subsidy received by way of exemption

from sales tax was capital in nature since the object of the incentive was to develop
backward areas. [S.28(i)]
The Assessee set up a unit in backward area and it was granted benefit of deferring the
payment of sales tax collected by it for 15 years. Subsequently, the Assessee opted for
the Exemption Scheme wherein it was exempt from levy of sales tax. The benefit that
arose was offered to tax as a capital receipt in its revised return of income. The AO held
that it was a revenue receipt. The ITAT held that the subsidy was capital in nature since

36
S. 4 Charge of income-tax

the object and purpose of the incentive was to develop industries in the backward area,
to remove imbalance and to maintain regional economic growth. (AY. 2006-07, 2007-08)
John Deere India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2015) 69 SOT 45 (URO) / 172 TTJ 470 (2016) 45 ITR
389 (Pune)(Trib.)
John Deere Equipment P. Ltd. v. ITO( 2015) 69 SOT 45 (URO) / 172 TTJ 470 / (2016) 45
ITR 389 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Penalty to be paid outside India for violation of law of 116
other country does not attract tax in India therefore tax is not to be deducted. [S. 195]
The Assessee was a listed company in India and ADR of the company were also
listed on carried on the New York Stock Exchange. The US Court levied a penalty
of 10 million $ for violation of Securities Exchange Act, 1934. The Assessee
made an application to AAR to ascertain whether it was required to deduct tax at
source. The AAR held that penalty to be paid for violation of law cannot attract
tax under the Income-tax Act and therefore, provisions of section 195 were not
attracted.
Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 189 / 236 Taxman 199 / 282 CTR 41 /
129 DTR 14 (AAR)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Settlement amount received in pursuance for surrender 117

right to sue is a capital receipt and not a business income, hence not chargeable to
tax in India. [S.28(i), 45]
The Applicant, a foreign institutional investor (‘FII’) alongwith its affiliates purchased
shares of Satyam Computer Services Limited (‘Satyam’) and Satyam’s American
Depository Shares (‘ADRs’). Subsequently, in January 2009, the CEO confessed that the
accounts of the company were manipulated, pursuant to which, the Appellant and its
affiliates disposed of the shares of Satyam and ADRs.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed claims against Satyam for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Finally, a Settlement agreement was entered with Satyam whereby for an agreed
amount, the Appellant on behalf of the Aberdeen Investors would forever waive, release,
discharge and dismiss all legal claims against Satyam.
An application was filed with Authority of Advance Ruling (‘AAR’), to seek a ruling
in respect of the taxability of the agreed amount received from Satyam under the
Settlement Agreement under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The AAR held that the nature of settlement amount is of a capital receipt and the
amount has been received against surrender of right to sue cannot be considered for
the purpose of capital gains u/s.45, relying on the AAR decision in the case Qualified
Settlement Fund (QSF), In re (2016) 130 DTR (AAR) 367. In the said case, under
similar situation, AAR held that if right to sue is considered as a capital asset, its cost
of acquisition cannot be determined and in the absence of such cost of acquisition, the
computation provisions fails. Therefore, right to sue cannot be subjected to income tax
under the head ‘capital gains’.
Further, it was held that the settlement amount have been received not as part of
business profit or to compensate the future income but as a result of surrender of the

37
 Scope of total income S. 5

claim. Thus, even in accordance with the principle of surrogatum such amount is not
assessable as income because it does not replace any business income.
Aberdeen Asset Management Plc., In re (2016) 381 ITR 55 / 283 CTR 387 / 65 taxmann.
com 246 / 131 DTR 1 (AAR)]
Aberdeen Claims Administration Inc., In re (2016) 381 ITR 55 / 283 CTR 387 / 65
taxmann.com 246 / 131 DTR 1 (AAR)]

S. 5 : Scope of total income

118 S. 5 : Scope of total income – Accrual – Co–operative bank is also a banking company;
not liable to pay tax on NPA interest on accrual basis in view of RBI norms relating
to income recognition and assets classification. [S. 4, 145, Reserve Bank of India Act,
1934 S.45O, Banking Regulation Act, 1949]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that; Co-operative bank is also a
banking company; not liable to pay tax on NPA interest on accrual basis in view of RBI
norms relating to income recognition and assets classification. (AY. 2010-11)
PCIT v. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. (2016) 242 Taxman 60 / 289 CTR 225
(Guj.)(HC)

119 S. 5 : Scope of total income – Accrual – Interest receivable from non-performing assets,
which were not reflected in profit and loss account, would not be liable to tax. [S.145]
Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, the Court held that; interest receivable from non-
performing assets or from, bad and doubtful debts, which were not reflected in profit
and loss account, could not be liable to tax.
CIT v. Shri Basaveshwara Sahakari Bank. (2016) 242 Taxman 411 (Karn.)(HC)

120 S. 5 : Scope of total income – Disputed liability – When contractee disputed liability
to pay amount under contract, entire disputed amount would not be taxable in current
year. [S. 4, 145]
Assessee carried out contractual work and raised bill at agreed rate. ONCG disputed
liability and undertook to make interim payment - assessee offered only 50% of the bill
amount as income. AO taxed the entire income on accrual basis. Court held that since
ONGC had disputed its liability, it could not be said that there was any corresponding
liability on ONGC to pay assessee full amount and therefore, the said amount was not
chargeable to tax.
Deep Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 241 Taxman 355 (Guj.)(HC)

121 S. 5 : Scope of total income – Interest on compensation under dispute – chargeable to

tax only upon resolution of dispute by High Court [S.4]
Allowing the appeal, High Court held that only upon receipt of the final order, the
assessee became entitled to withdraw even the interest, which had accrued on such
compensation amount which was kept as deposit with the bank and the same would
then alone be liable to tax.
Shivanna, M. v. ACIT (2016) 142 DTR 319 (Karn.)(HC)

38
S. 6 Residence in India

S. 5 : Scope of total income – Interest accrued on non-performing assets could not be 122
brought to tax on notional basis even if Assessee had adopted mercantile system of
accounting. [S. 4, 145]
During the assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition of interest income
accrued on non-performing assets. The AO was of the view that as the Assessee follows
mercantile system of accounting, therefore the interest accrued should be chargeable to
tax.
On appeal before the High Court, the High Court after placing reliance on case of CIT v.
Canfin Homes Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 382 (Karn.)(HC) held that interest on non-performing
asset cannot be brought to tax on notional basis. Further the High Court held that the
nomenclature ‘non-performing asset’ would also include bad loans and advances. As a
result the Revenue’s appeal challenging the Tribunal’s order was dismissed. (AY. 2009-
10, 2010-11)
CIT v. Shri Siddeshwar Co-Operative Bank Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 588 / 240 Taxman 588
(Karn.)(HC)

S. 5 : Scope of total income – A non-resident, rendered services as a marine engineer, 123

salary received by him in India by fund transfer from foreign companies directly in
NRE account in India is held to be taxable in India [S. 5(2)(a)]
The assessee claimed that he had to float on foreign water to render services during
the course of voyage and, when he would stay more than 182 days outside India or on
foreign water, his residential status would be treated as ‘non-resident’ as per provision of
law and his salary income which were received outside India in foreign currency would
not be taxable u/s. 5. Dismissing the appeal of the assesse, the Tribunal held that; where
assessee, a non-resident, rendered services on board a ship outside territorial waters of
any country, salary received in India by way of transfer of funds in his NRE account in
India, would be taxable in India u/s. 5(2)(a). (AY. 2010-11)
Tapas Kr. Bandopadhyay v. Dy.CIT (2016) 159 ITD 309 / 180 TTJ 702 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 5 : Scope of total income – Accrual of income – Method of accounting – The income 124
cannot be said to have accrued when the realization was uncertain.
The Tribunal held that the income cannot be said to have accrued to assessee though
following mercantile system of accounting as the assessee contractor had terminated the
contract for non-payment of earlier bills and realization was uncertain. (AY. 2002-03)
Bechtel International Inc. v. Dy. DIT (2016) 177 TTJ 58 (UO)(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 6. Residence in India

S. 6 : Residence in India – Installation project continuing only for 178 days in fiscal 125
year, less than 183 days – No permanent establishment of applicant in India –
Business profits from execution of project taxable only in country where applicant
was resident – DTAA-India-Singapore. [S.6(3), Art. 7(1)]
Since the project executed by the applicant in India continued only for 178 days in a
fiscal year, less than 183 days in a fiscal year, there was no permanent establishment of
the applicant in India and that the business profits accruing or arising to the applicant

39
 Residence in India S. 6

by way of the execution of the project under reference were taxable only in the country
where the applicant was a resident in terms of Article 7(1) of the Double Taxation
Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. (AY.2013-14)
Tiong Woon Project and Contracting (Pte) Ltd. In, re (2016) 380 ITR 187 / 282 CTR 39 /
129 DTR 16 (AAR)

126 S. 6 : Residence in India – Individual – Capital gains – Resident in India who earned
capital gains on sale of immovable property situated in Sri Lanka shall be chargeable
to tax only in Sri Lanka DTAA-India-Sri Lanka [S.6(1)), Art. 4, 13]
Assessee, a Sri Lankan National, was married to an Indian National and was living in
India after her marriage. She had sold her immovable property and claimed that capital
gain arising on sale of said property fell within purview of Article 13. Assessing Officer
rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that as per provisions of S. 6 and
Article 4, assessee was resident in India during relevant previous year as she stayed for
more than prescribed period u/s. 6 in India and had personal and economic relations
with India, therefore any income arising in India or outside India was fully taxable
under section 5 of the Act. On appeal Tribunal held that ; capital gains earned on sale
of immovable property situated in Sri Lanka would be chargeable to tax only in Sri
Lanka while same income would be included in income of assessee chargeable to tax
in India under provisions of Act and relief would be granted in manner laid down in
Notification No. 91 of 2008, dated 28-8-2008.(AY. 2007-08)
Shalini Seekond (Mrs.) v. ITO (2016) 159 ITD 905 / 180 TTJ 1 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9 : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

127 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Income
arising by way of slot chartering, would form a part of income from operations of ships,
is exempt under article 8 of India Singapore DTAA – DTAA-India-Singapore [Art.8]
Revenue, on appeal filed against order of Tribunal, raised following question for
consideration of High Court: whether Tribunal was justified in holding that income of
assessee, arising by way of slot chartering, would form a part of income from operations
of ships, exempt under article 8 of India Singapore DTAA. Dismissing the appeal of
revenue the Court held that above question stood concluded against revenue by a
decision of Bombay High Court rendered in case of DIT (IT) v. Balaji Spg. UK Ltd.
[2012] 211 Taxman 535, therefore, said question did not give rise to any substantial
question of law. (AY. 2004-05)
DIT v. APL Co. Pte. Ltd. (2016) 243 Taxman 84 (Bom.)(HC)
Editorial : SLP is granted to the revenue, DIT v. APL Co. Pte Ltd. (2016) 243 Taxman 141
(SC)

128 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – When
under offshore contract, equipment was transferred outside India, necessarily taxable
income also accrued outside India and, hence, no portion of such income was taxable
in India, writ petition of revenue was dismissed.
Revenue filed writ petition against an order passed by Authority for Advance Rulings.
Whether as point arising under section 9 sought to be urged was covered against
40
S. 9(1)(i) Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

revenue by two decisions of Delhi High Court rendered in assessee’s own case, i.e.,
DIT v. LG Cables Ltd. [2011] 197 Taxman 100 and DIT v. L.S. Cables Ltd. [IT Appeal
No. 707 of 2011, dated 30-9-2011], wherein it has been held that (i) since there was no
material to show that accrual of income under offshore supply contract was attributable
to any operations carried out by assessee, a Korean company, in India and furthermore
scope of work under onshore contract was under a separate agreement and for separate
consideration, there was no justification to treat onshore contract and offshore contract
as a composite contract, and (ii) when under offshore contract, equipment was
transferred outside India, necessarily taxable income also accrued outside India and,
hence, no portion of such income was taxable in India, writ petition was liable to be
dismissed
DIT v. LS Cable Ltd. (2016) 243 Taxman 427 (Delhi)(HC)
Editorial : SLP is granted, DIT v. L S Cable Ltd. (2016) 243 Taxman 435 (SC)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Non-resident – Apportionment 129

of such income – Non-resident company assigned rights and obligations to sell and
deliver equipment manufactured by its parent non-resident company – Equipment
supplied outside India – No installation or commissioning activity by assessee – No
part of income from transaction assessable in India.
The task of installation, commissioning and testing was contracted to assessee’s
subsidiary in India and thus, the operations pertaining to installation and commissioning
were not performed by that subsidiary on behalf of the assessee but on its own behalf.
Thus, the assessee could be stated to have performed any installation or commissioning
activity in India. The equipment contract also indicated that the vendor had other
obligations such as coordinating its efforts with the sub-contractors, etc. The supplier
was liable to deliver the equipment to the carrier at the port of shipment or the airport
of departure which would be outside India. The assessee only assumed the obligation to
sell, supply and deliver equipment in terms of the equipment contract and was paid in
terms of the pricing mechanism as agreed to under the equipment contract. The income
from installation, commissioning and testing activities as well as any function performed
by expatriate employees of the group companies seconded to Indian subsidiary would
be subject to tax in the hands of the subsidiary and could not be considered income of
the assessee. (AY. 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06)
Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT (2016) 386 ITR 353 / 241 Taxman 464 /
288 CTR 383 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Transfer 130
of trade mark “Foster” in India – Since it was transfer of intangible asset and the
assessee was not located in India at time of transaction, income accruing to assessee
from transfer of its right, title or interest in trade mark was not taxable in India –
DTAA-India-Australia. [Art. 13]
AAR has answered the question by holding that the income “accrued” to the applicant,
from the transfer of its right title and interest in and the trade mark and Foster’s Brand
Intellectual Property is taxable in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue in
HC was whether the receipt arising to the applicant from the transfer of its right, title

41
 Income deemed to accrue or arise in India S. 9(1)(i)

and interest in and to the trademark foster’s brand Intellectual Property was taxable
in India under the IT Act, 1961. Insofar as the income attributable to brewing IPR
was concerned, the same was not liable to be taxed under the I.T. Act? Allowing the
appeal of the assessee the court held that the situs of the Trademarks & ITR, which
were assigned pursuant to the owner thereof was not located in India at the time of the
transaction, receipt arising to the assessee from the transfer of its right, title and interest
in and to the trademarks’ Foster’s brand IPR and grant of exclusive perpetual licence of
Foster brewing IPR was not taxable in India.
CUB Pty Ltd. v. UOI (2016) 388 ITR 617 / 139 DTR 113 / 241 taxman 278 / 288 CTR 361
(Delhi)(HC)

131 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Shipping
company – “international traffic” India-Singapore DTAA][Art. 3(h), 8]
Transportation of goods from Kandla port to Vizag Port in a vessel from Singapore bound
to Dubai falls within the definition of the term “international traffic” under Article 3(h)
of India-Singapore DTAA and cannot be said to be operating solely between the places
in India and therefore, as per the provisions of Article 8 of India-Singapore DTAA, the
profits arising out of the same is not taxable in India.
CIT v. Tarus Shipping Services (2016) 236 Taxman 555 / 288 CTR 718 (Guj.)(HC)

132 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business income – UK-based
non-resident company was not having permanent establishment in India and received
non-compete fee, same would not be taxed in India – DTAA-India-UK [S. 28(va), 55,
Art. 7]
Tribunal held that; UK-based non-resident company was not having permanent
establishment in India and received non-compete fee, same would not be taxed in India.
(AY. 2008-09)
Trans Global PLC v. DIT (IT) (2016) 158 ITD 230 (Kol.)(Trib.)

133 S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business profits – Foreign
subsidiaries performed its operations outside India and no technical knowledge was
made available to assessee amount paid to subsidiary was held to be not taxable in
India – DTAA-India USA [Art, 7, 12]
Assessee-company was engaged in business of software development and other allied
activities. Assessee parcelled out a portion of its work to its foreign subsidiaries. The AO
held that the amount paid by assessee to foreign subsidiaries was in nature of technical
service fee liable to tax in India. On appeal allowing the appeal, the Tribunal held that;
since no operations had been undertaken by foreign subsidiaries in India and they even
did not have permanent establishment in India, amount paid to said companies was not
taxable in India. The Tribunal also held that since no technical knowledge was made
available to assessee, by its foreign subsidiary which was the requirement under the
DTAA for payment to qualify as technical services fee, payment in question was not
taxable in India. (AY. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06)
Cyient Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2015) 70 SOT 741( Hyd.)(Trib.)

42
S. 9(1)(i) Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Revenue 134
from ‘software sale’ by assessee shall be taxable – Receipts from annual maintenance
contract would also be covered as ‘business profits – Training of personnel of endusers
for which this consideration had been received was ancillary and subsidiary to sale
of software, was assessable as business profits – DTAA-India-UK [Art. 7, 13]
Assessee was a tax resident of UK having a PE in shape of branch office in India,
declared ‘software sales’ in its profit & loss account as business receipts, however
Assessing Officer treated Revenue from ‘software sales’ as ‘royalty’ which was subjected
to tax accordingly. Tribunal held that; the assessee simply purchased shrink-wrapped
software or off-the-shelf software from UK company without any right to use copyright
of such software, thus Revenue from ‘software sale’ by assessee shall be taxable under
article 7 as ‘business profits’ and not royalty under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA and
the consideration for sale of copyrighted product and not use of any copyright. Tribunal
also held that since the receipts from sale of original software had been held to be in
nature of business profits covered under Article 7 and not as royalty under article 13
of DTAA, following this, receipts from annual maintenance contract would also be
covered under Article 7 ‘business profits’. As regards training of personnel of end users
for which this consideration had been received was ancillary and subsidiary to sale of
software, assessee’s stand of including such receipts under Article 7 of DTAA was to be
allowed. (AY. 2007-08)
Datamine International Ltd. v. ADIT(IT) (2016) 158 ITD 84 / 178 TTJ 560 / 48 ITR 229
(Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – In 135

absence of Permanent Establishment of foreign subsidiaries in India, amount received
by said companies could not be brought to tax in India as business income – DTAA-
India-UK-Singapore [S.195, Art. 5, 7]
As per Article 7 of UK and Singapore Treaty, in the absence of PE in India, the business
income also would not get taxed in India. Hence the payment made by the assessee
to its subsidiaries is not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the subsidiaries in
India. The provisions of section 195(1) mandate a requirement that the income should
be chargeable to tax in India to assume jurisdiction in India. It is proved beyond doubt
that the subsidiaries do not have any income chargeable to tax in India. (AY. 2008-09,
2009-10)
Batlivala & Karani Securities (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2016) 159 ITD 924 / 180 TTJ 558
(Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – liaison 136
office in India not authorized to do core business activity or sign or execute contracts
– no permanent establishment – no attribution of profits – DTAA-India-Japan [Art. 5]
AO held that the assessee had a fixed place PE and the core business activities were
carried out though the liaison office and the conditions laid down in RBI permission
were violated. The Tribunal held that, there was no PE, as the Liasion office and its
employees were not authorized to do core business activity or sign or execute contracts,
they were only authorized to engage in preparatory/auxiliary activities and not carry out

43
 Income deemed to accrue or arise in India S. 9(1)(i)

entire business activity. The power of attorney gave restricted and specific authority to
the Liasion office. All purchase orders were raised directly on the head office by Indian
customers, and the head office directly sent quotations/invoices to the customers without
any involvement of Liasion office in India. As no PE in India the question of attribution
of income from off-shore supplies does not arise. (AY. 2011-12)
Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 847 / 46 ITR 739 / 177 TTJ 90
(Delhi)(Trib.)

137 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Supply
of software was integrally connected to supply of hardware – Receipts from supply of
software could not be taxed as royalty
Where supply of software was integrally connected to supply of hardware, receipts from
supply of software could not be taxed as royalty. (A.Y. 2004-05 to 2009-10)
Addl. DIT (IT) v. ZTE Corporation (2016) 140 DTR 81 / 179 TTJ 424 (Delhi)(Trib.)

138 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Where
project of assessee did not have work duration of more than 9 months during year, a
back-up-cum-support office simpliciter would not constitute PE of assessee.
Where only activities carried out by assessee in India were through various construction
projects meant for exploration and production of mineral oil, and no other business
activities had been carried out which could be called as independent business activities
yielding separate/independent business profits, aforesaid activity of construction project
were to be considered primarily under article 5(2)(i) and not under any other clause. PE
of assessee had to be determined, keeping in view work carried out at its project sites
and since project of assessee did not have work duration of more than 9 months during
a year, an activity of maintenance of back-up cum support office simpliciter would not
constitute PE of assessee. (AY. 1998-99, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2008-09)
Addl. DIT(IT) v. J. Ray McDermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd. (2016) 180 TTJ 660 (Mum.)
(Trib.)

139 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Permanent Establishment–

For purpose of attribution of profits to Permanent Establishment, Permanent
Establishment’s participation in economic life of source country is to be considered,
Accordingly, 35 per cent of net global profits as per published accounts out of
transactions of assessee with India were attributed to Permanent Establishment in
India – Receipts from supply of software could not be taxed as royalty – DTAA-India
-China [S. 9(1)(vi), Art. 5, 7]
Assessee a Chinese Company, supplied telecom equipment’s to Indian Telecom
Operators. For the purpose of attribution of profits to PE, most important aspect to be
kept in mind is level of PE’s participation in economic life of Source Country and for
this, level of operations carried out by PE in India are to be considered to arrive at
a reasonable percentage of profit to be attributed to PE in India. Level of operations
carried out by assessee, a Chinese Company, through its PE in India, were considerable
enough to conclude that almost entire sales functions including marketing, banking

44
S. 9(1)(i) Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

and after sales were carried out by PE in India, it would meet ends of justice if 35 per
cent of net global profits as per published accounts out of transactions of assessee with
India were attributed to PE in India. In respect of both hardware and software supplied
by assessee to Indian customers. Since supply of software was integrally connected to
supply of hardware, CIT(A) had rightly held that receipts from supply of software could
not be taxed as royalty. (AY. 2004-05 to 2009-10)
ZTE Corporation v. ADIT (2016) 159 ITD 696 / 179 TTJ 424 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Permanent Establishment 140

– Entire relationship was principal to principal basis and Indian subsidiary acting
independently, it did not constitute an agency PE in terms of article 5(4), distribution
income could not be taxed in India – DTAA-India-Mauritius. [Art. 5(4)]
Assessee engaged in business of broadcasting of sports all across globe including India.
Since assessee did not have any branch or business premises in India, it had formed
a subsidiary, namely ‘Taj India’ as its advertising sales agent. A distribution agreement
was entered into by assessee with Taj India for distribution of paid channel to various
cable operators and ultimately to consumers in India. Distribution revenue collected by
Taj India was to be shared between assessee and ‘Taj India’ in ratio. Entire relationship
qua distribution revenue was that of principal to principal basis and Subsidiary was
acting independently, not constitute an agency PE in terms of Article 5(4) of DTAA. (AY.
2003-04 to 2005-06)
ADIT v. Taj TV Ltd. (2016) 161 ITD 339/ (2017) 184 TTJ 202 / 147 DTR 30 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – legal fees to a firm in UK for 141
creating/earning a new source of income outside India by way of establishment of
new bank branch or acquisition of a bank is not taxable in India – DTAA-India-UK
[S.195, Art. 13]
Assessee engaged in banking business, paid legal fees to a firm in UK for creating/
earning a new source of income outside India by way of establishment of new bank
branch or acquisition of a bank. Payments fall under the exceptions of S. 9(1)(vi)/(vii)
and therefore not taxable under Indian law. Firm had neither any business connection
nor any PE in India, payment was not taxable as per S. 9(1)(i) (AY. 2012-13)
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2016) 161 ITD 304 / (2017) 183 TTJ 414 / 150
DTR 16 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9 (1)(i) : Income – Deemed to accrue or arise in India – Corporate guarantee – 142

Extended credit facilities by branch of said bank, guarantee commission received by
assessee did not accrue in India – DTAA-India-France. [Art. 23]
Assessee, a French company, had given corporate guarantee to French bank on
behalf of its Indian subsidiaries. Extended credit facilities by branch of said bank,
guarantee commission received by assessee did not accrue in India. Article 23 had no
applicability-India-France. (AY. 2012-13)
Capgemini SA v. DCIT (2016) 160 ITD 13 (Mum.)(Trib.)

45
 Income deemed to accrue or arise in India S. 9(1)(i)

143 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – A

“power of attorney” holder of a non-resident can constitute a “dependent agent”, “fixed
place of business” and a “permanent establishment” under Article 5 of the DTAA. The
fact that the physical presence of the non-resident in India is nominal is irrelevant –
DTAA-India-Swiss. [S. 195, Art. 5, 7]
Dismissing the appeal of assessee the Tribunal held that ; the reference by AO to Article
5 draws special importance. While business constitutes continuous activity in organized
manner it is often a question of fact & law. “Place of business” usually means a premises
of the enterprise used for carrying on the business, whether or not exclusively used
for business. The residence of the country Manager was held to be a fixed place of
business as the same was used as an office address in Sutron Corporation In re 268 ITR
156 AAR. Similarly an office space of 3 x 6 metres in Motorola Inc & Ors 95 ITD 269
(Del). To constitute a PE, the business must be located at a single place for a reasonable
length of time. The activity need not be permanent, endless or without interruptions.
It may not be out of place to mention that functions performed by Sri V. Subramanian
or the Indian subsidiary could not be classified as preparatory or auxiliary in character.
The facts strongly indicate towards Sri V. Subramanian constituting a dependent agent/
PE for reasons brought on record by the AO and as discussed in foregoing paragraphs.
There were no presence of a number of principals who exercised legal and or economic
control over the agent Sri V. Subramanian. The principal i.e. the assessee has failed to
demonstrate this aspect when confronted by the AO. The principal i.e. the assessee
was relying on the special skills and knowledge of the agent Sri V. Subramanian
the Managing Director of the Indian entity by the same name and rendering similar
functions. Sri V. Subramanian was acting exclusively or almost exclusively for and on
behalf of the assessee during the currency of the contracts in question. To that extent
it was not in furtherance of his ordinary course of business. Finally the refuge taken
of Article 5(2)(j) on the short period of contracts and the interregnum does not offer
any solace to the assessee either. The assessee has not demonstrated it was a mere
passing, transient or casual presence for its activity in India. In view of this, we confirm
the order of the lower authorities. This ground is therefore dismissed. (ITA No. 1742/
Mad/2011, dt. 24.08.2016) (AY. 2008-09)
Carpi Tech SA v. ADIT (2017) 145 DTR 17 (Chennai)(Trib.)

144 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Permanent Establishment–

Continuous period of stay of its employees in India which had to be taken into
consideration and not entire contract period– DTAA-India-Germany. [S. 115A, Art.5,
7, 12(2)]
The assessee filed the return of income wherein amount received from Indian companies
for providing technical consultancy services was offered to tax under Article 12(2) of
the DTAA at 10%. The AO taxed at 30% and in respect of two contracts at 20%. On
appeal the Tribunal held that ;in order to determine as to whether assessee, a German
company, rendering services in field of exploration, mining and extraction to Indian
companies, had PE in India, it was continuous period of stay of its employees in India
which had to be taken into consideration and not entire contract period. Since assessee

46
S. 9(1)(i) Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

had deputed one of its employees to India and he did not stay in India for more than
180 days, it could not be concluded that assessee had PE in India. Therefore, provisions
of S. 115A would not be applicable to assessee. (AY. 2002-03)
Rheinbraun Engineering Und Wasser GmbH v. Dy. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 359 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business profits – Assessee 145
secured order on behalf of its Indian entity and outsourced work thereto, such entity
constituted assessee’s business connection in India hence liable to be assessed. [Art. 7
of OECD Model Convention]
Assessee a UK based company secured orders on behalf of its Indian entity and
outsourced work thereto. Responsibility of assessee vis-a-vis its customer was concluded
in India. Responsibility of assessee could not be segregated and would not complete
unless Indian entity provided services to customers. Assessee had continuous revenue
generating business activities with Indian entity and there was real and intimate
relationship between activities of assessee outside India and those inside India therefore,
assessee had business connection in India, hence liable to be assessed. (AY. 2004-05)
Dy.CIT v. Vertex Customer Management Ltd. (2016) 158 ITD 365 / 178 TTJ 580 (Delhi)
(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Permanent establishment – 146

Assessee received BPO services from its Indian entity, it did not constitute fixed place
PE in India hence cannot be assessed – DTAA-India-UK.[Art. 5]
Assessee received BPO services and back office operations from its Indian entity. Back
office services did not constitute permanent establishment in India. As assessee had no
right to occupy premises but was merely given access for purposes of works, disposal
test was not satisfied and, therefore, assessee did not have fixed place PE in India, hence
cannot be assessed. (AY.2004-05)
Dy.CIT v. Vertex Customer Management Ltd. (2016) 158 ITD 365 / 178 TTJ 580 (Delhi)
(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Permanent establishment – 147

AO held that expatriate employees of assessee were providing services in India but
he could not render any evidence in this regard, it did not constitute service PE in
India – DTAA-India-UK [Art. 5]
The assessee, a UK based company, outsourced certain work to its Indian entity.
It received reimbursement from Indian entity for certain expenses. It claimed said
amount was on cost to cost basis and therefore was not taxable. The A.O. held that
reimbursement had an effect of reducing income of the Indian entity. He, therefore,
taxed said reimbursement and also held that assessee had business connection and PE in
India. The honourable ITAT held that AO. did not produce any evidence in this regard
to reimbursement amount pertaining to third party cost directly relatable to Indian
entity, amount allocated to Indian entity was taxable as royalty. Therefore, assessee did
not have service PE in India.
Dy.CIT v. Vertex Customer Management Ltd. (2016) 158 ITD 365 / 178 TTJ 580 (Delhi)
(Trib.)

47
 Income deemed to accrue or arise in India S. 9(1)(i)

148 S. 9 (1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Part of business operations in
India – Only part of income reasonably attributable to operations carried on in India
shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India – DTAA-India-Mauritius. [Art. 5, 7]
As per Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(i), income from business would be deemed to be
only such part of income, as was reasonably attributable to operations carried out in
India. Thus where part of business operations of assessee were carried out outside India,
only part of income reasonably attributable to operations carried on in India shall be
deemed to accrue or arise in India. (AY. 2005-06 to 2007-08)
ADIT(IT) v. J. Ray McDermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd. (2016) 158 ITD 923 / 180 TTJ 660
(Mum.)(Trib.)

149 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Permanent establishment –

Project of assessee did not have work duration of more than 9 months during year, a
back-up-cum-support office simpliciter would not constitute Permanent establishment
of assessee – DTAA-India-Mauritius. [S.5(2)(i), 90, Art. 5, 7]
Where only activities carried out by assessee in India were through various construction
projects meant for exploration and production of mineral oil, and no other business
activities had been carried out which could be called as independent business activities
yielding separate/independent business profits, aforesaid activity of construction project
were to be considered primarily under article 5(2)(i) and not under any other clause. PE
of assessee had to be determined, keeping in view work carried out at its project sites
and since project of assessee did not have work duration of more than 9 months during
year, an activity of maintenance of back-up cum support office simpliciter would not
constitute PE of assessee. (AY. 1998-99, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2008-09)
ADIT (IT) v. J. Ray McDermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd. (2016) 158 ITD 923 / 180 TTJ
660 (Mum.)(Trib.)

150 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection –

Commission – Services of non-resident companies for running duty free retail shops
– Matter remanded – DTAA-India-UK-UAE. [Art. 7, 13]
Assessee company was engaged in business of operation and maintenance of an
International Airport. It had established duty free retail outlet shop at international
terminals of Airport. Assessee engaged services of two non-resident companies namely
Alpha and Kreol in running duty free retail outlet shop. In consideration of services
rendered by Alpha and Kreol, assessee agreed to pay ‘commission fee’ at 2 per cent
of gross sales from duty free retail outlet. Assessing Officer held that commission fees
was to be considered as business income deemed to accrue or arise in India through a
‘business connection’ in India under section 9(1)(i). CIT(A) also confirmed the order of
AO. On appeal the Tribunal held that; revenue authorities had not examined existence
of ‘business connection’ as per statutory definition mentioned in Explanation 2 to section
9(1)(i). Moreover, authorities below failed to conclude under which clause of relevant
DTAAs existence of PE was satisfied. Therefore in aforesaid circumstances, impugned
order was to be set aside and, matter was to be remanded back for disposal afresh.
Matter remanded. (AY. 2005-06, 2009-10)
Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2016) 157 ITD 310 / 136 DTR 241 / 177 TTJ
578 (Cochin)(Trib.)
48
S. 9(1)(i) Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Indian 151
Liaison Office and agents of US money transfer company, rendering services to Indian
relations of American residents in India, were not its PE in India; profit attributable
to Indian activities was not liable to tax in India – DTAA-India-USA [Art. 5, 7]
Assessee-US company was engaged in business of transfer of money across countries
through specialised software. It set up Liaison Office which appointed agents in India
for rendering said services to Indian relations of American resident. Assessee provided
software enabling agents to access its mainframes in USA. No copyright over software
was given to agents. Agents owned computer system independently and assessee had no
control over them. Further, activities of agents were not wholly or almost wholly devoted
on behalf of assessee. Transaction in question/compensation was under arm’s length
price. The assessee filed its return declaring ‘nil’ income by contending that it was not
liable to pay any tax in India on income arising from money transfer services as it did
not have any permanent establishment in India. The Assessing Officer held that income
arising to the assessee from money transfer services was taxable in India, both under the
Income-tax Act and the DTAA between India and the USA. The Commissioner (Appeals)
set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal by revenue the Tribunal held
that; Indian Liaison Office and agents of US money transfer company, rendering services
to Indian relations of American residents in India, were not its PE in India; profit
attributable to Indian activities was not liable to tax in India.(AY. 2004-05, 2009-10)
Dy. CIT v. Western Union Financial Services Inc (2016) 156 ITD 882 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Branch 152
office – Compensated at arm’s length for performing services–No part of assessee’s
profit could be taxed in India as profits attributable to PE – DTAA-India-USA [Art. 5, 7]
Allowing the appeal assessee the Tribunal held that where assessee’s branch office,
which was considered as assessee’s PE in India, was compensated at arm’s length for
performing services in respect of direct sales made by assessee in India, no part of
assessee’s profit could be taxed in India as profit attributable to Indian PE. (AY. 2002-
03 to 2004-05)
St. Jude Medical Inc v. Dy.CIT (2016) 156 ITD 387 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – 153

Composite contract to supply, install and implement retail automation system would
be taxable in India through the project office in India. The sub-contract of service
component could not be used to split the composite contract.
Assessee entered into a composite contract to supply, install and implement retail
automation system. The installation of systems was sub-contracted to another party in
India. Assessee alleged that the income from supply of equipment was not taxable in
India since it was supplied outside India and payments were received outside India. The
AO alleged that the contract could not be split into supply of equipment and service
income, and held that the project office was PE in India. ITAT held that the project
office opened in India to oversee the implementation of the project would constitute
a PE in India. Further, it was held that the income could not be split by the Assessee
since it had entered into a composite contract and was responsible for both the supply

49
 Income deemed to accrue or arise in India S. 9(1)(i)

of equipment as well as installation services. The sub-contract was only of the methods
of executing the project and could not be used to split the composite contract. (AY.
2008-09)
Orpak Systems Ltd. v. ADIT(IT) (2016) 176 TTJ 655 / 133 DTR 137 (Mum.)(Trib.)

154 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Power
of attorney – Liaison office – Does not constitute permanent establishment – DTAA –
India-Japan. [S. 90, Art. 5]
A Power of Attorney executed by the Head Office in favour of the Liaison Office in
India does not create a Permanent Establishment if the powers are specific to the liaison
office and are not unfettered powers to enable to Liaison Office to act on behalf of the
enterprise. (AY 2011-12)
Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 157 ITD 847 / 132 DTR 81 / 177 TTJ 90 /
46 ITR 739 (Delhi)(Trib.)

155 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Intention
of parties that property in goods would pass only when installation and erection of
entire works completed – Entire amount received from contractor taxable in India –
DTAA-India-Singapore [Art.7]
Authority held that nowhere in the agreement was contractual bifurcation available.
There was no mention of two transactions. The clause in the agreement dealing with
the scope of work was not divisible in two parts. The payment schedule depended upon
the stages of completion of the project and not on shipment of goods or completion of
services. Intention of parties that property in goods would pass only when installation
and erection of entire works completed. Entire amount received from contractor taxable
in India.
MERO Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., In re (2016) 387 ITR 274 / 243 Taxman 322 / 289 CTR 1 /
140 DTR 394 (AAR)

156 S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Lease
of cranes in mineral oil project – Section 44BB applicable – Business profits taxable
at 40 per cents – DTAA-India-Singapore. [S.44BB, Art.5(3), 7]
The applicant was a tax resident of Singapore engaged in the business of renting/
leasing of heavy lifting cranes for use and providing erection and installation of heavy
equipment such as furnaces, boilers, coke drums, fractionators, chimneys, turbines and
generators in many countries in Asia. It rented out a crane having a capacity to lift 1600
metric tons in terms of a work order for a period of 7 months from February 17, 2015
to GR for use at the refinery of Bharat Petroleum at its integrated refinery expansion
project site at its Kochi refinery, which was engaged in refining of mineral oils. The
total consideration was ` 19.45 crores. It sought an advance ruling on the questions
whether it could be held to have earned any income taxable in India from its activities
renting out of its cranes for use in India, under the provisions of the Income-tax Act,
1961 and if so, how the total income of the applicant should be computed in terms of
the provisions of the Act. The Department contended that the installation of project was
carried out by the applicant commencing on February 16, 2015 and expected it to end

50
S. 9(1)(ii) Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

on January 31, 2016 and this constituted a permanent establishment of the applicant
in India in terms of article 5(3) of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India
and Singapore (DTAA) and hence, the business profits attributable to the permanent
establishment were the applicant’s income arising in India under section 9(1)(i) of the Act
and assessable as such in India in terms of Article 7 of the DTAA for assessment years
2015-16 and 2016-17, which were the years where the applicant had not exceeded 183
days and that for the purpose of computing the business profits, section 44BB of the Act
being applicable to the case of the applicant, such business profits were taxable at the
rate of 40 per cent. The applicant not having any dispute with the inferences raised by
the Department, the Authority, on the stated facts, disposed of the application in terms of
the conclusions drawn by the Department in its response. (AY. 2015-16, 2016-17)
Tiong Woon Contracting Pte Ltd., In re (2016) 387 ITR 350 / 243 Taxman 58 / 289 CTR
353 (AAR)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Program 157
fee received by applicant from Northwest is neither taxable as royalty nor as business
profits – DTAA-India-USA. [Art. 5, 7]
Program fee received by applicant from Northwest is not taxable in India either as
royalty or as business profits
Regents of the University of California UCLA Anderson School of Management Executive
Education, USA, In re (2016) 243 Taxman 122 (AAR)

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Management programmes for 158
senior executives – Fees received was held to be not liable to tax in India – DTAA-
India-USA [Art. 5,12(5)]
Applicant, a US based non-profit corporate organisation, has entered into an agreement
with an Indian company to launch management programmes for senior executives of
various companies in India, since applicant manages to prove that it is an educational
institution, programme fees received by applicant from Indian concern will be covered
by Article 12(5)(c) of India, USA DTAA and, thus, it is not liable to tax in India
UC Berkeley Center for Executive Education, USA, In re (2016) 242 Taxman 360 / 289
CTR 106 (AAR)

S. 9(1)(ii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Salaries – Assessee rendered 159
services in USA, salary received by him for such services in India from sister concern
of US employer would be exempt from Indian taxation – DTAA-Indo-US [S. 5, Art. 16(1)]
Assessee was transferred from Indian company to its American sister concern to act as
a lead software engineer and accordingly he left India on 30-5-2007 in connection with
his US employment. However, for internal facilitation, his salary for relevant period was
paid by Indian company in India. Since services in question were rendered by assessee
in USA, his salary income during relevant year was exempt from tax under Article
16(1). Applicability of article 16(1) depends on country where services were rendered
and merely because salary was paid by Indian entity, application of Article 16(1) could
not be denied. (AY. 2008-09)
Neeraj Badaya v. ADIT (2016) 157 ITD 1016 / 137 DTR 283 / 179 TTJ 387 (SMC)(Jaipur)
(Trib.)
51
 Income deemed to accrue or arise in India S.9(1)(vi)

160 S. 9(1)(iv) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Dividend by Indian company
– Mere reduction in capital occurred due to transfer of shares under scheme of
buy back which was approved by High Court does not fall under definition of
‘reorganization’ specified in Article 13(5) – Held that gain was taxable in India –
DTAA-India-Netherlands [Art. 13(5)]
The assessee tendered equity shares of a public listed Indian company under a scheme
of arrangement by way of buy back of own shares as per approval of High Court which
resulted in capital gain. The AO and CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee that as
per paragraph 5 of Article 13 of India Netherlands DTAA, the transaction felt under
the definition of ‘reorganization’ as specified in Article 13(5) and that the gain was
not taxable. On appeal to ITAT, it was held that the object of arrangement was not
financial restructuring but to enable assessee to transfer its shareholding and there was
only reduction in share capital and security holders continued to enjoy same types of
rights and interests. It further held thatthe attempt of the assessee to bring transferring
of shares within the ambit of the term ‘reorganization’ may not be correct, since the
objective of the arrangement was not financial restructuring, but to provide an exit route
to the non-resident shareholders. (AY. 2006-07)
Accordis Beheer B V v. DIT (IT) (2016) 157 ITD 373 / 176 TTJ 406 / 136 DTR 65 (Mum.)
(Trib.)

161 S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Broadcasting payment was
held to be not in the nature of royalty – DTAA-India-Thailand [Art. 12]
Assessee was a producer of tele-programmes and engaged in the operation of Satellite
T.V. Channel. It entered into an agreement for hiring of transponder for transmitting
the TV programmes through satellite with Thailand based company. Said company
broadcast said contents through its satellite. In lieu of such broadcasting, it was paid
various sums from time-to-time. AO held the payments to be in the nature of royalty.
On appeal by the revenue, the Court held that; as per the agreement the assessee
facilitated transmission and broadcasting of various programs in India and earned the
income mainly from advertisement as it was a free to Air Channel. The AO held that
payment made to non-resident company was from the source in India and was in the
nature of Royalty within the meaning of sub clause (b) of section 9(1)(vi) read with
clause (iii) of explanation 2 of the said section. The High Court held that, the issue
is decided in favour of the assessee by the Delhi High Court in case of Asia Satellite
Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT [2011] 332 ITR 340/197 Taxman 263 (Delhi) and DIT
v. New Skies Satellite B.V. [2016] 382 ITR 114 (Delhi) and they agreed with the views
expressed therein. (AY. 2001-02 to 2003-04)
DIT v. ATN International Ltd. (2016) 242 Taxman 8 (Cal.)(HC)

162 S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Payments received
by assessee amounted to royalty as defined under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) and
under Article 12 of applicable DTAA thereby giving rise to an income chargeable to tax
in India – Held liable to deduct tax at source – DTAA-India-USA [S.195, 90, Art. 12]
Tribunal held that payments received by assessee amounted to royalty as defined under
Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) and under article 12 of applicable DTAA thereby
giving rise to an income chargeable to tax in India. Assessee raised following questions
52
S.9(1)(vi) Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

of law for consideration of High Court: (i) whether Tribunal was right in disposing of
assessee’s appeal by placing reliance on judgment of Karnataka High Court in case of
CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 494 and on its earlier order made
in assessee’s own case [IT Appeal No. 550 (Bang.) of 2011, dated 31-10-2012], and (ii)
whether Tribunal was justified in holding that payments received by assessee amounted
to royalty as defined under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) and under Article 12 of
applicable DTAA thereby giving rise to an income chargeable to tax in India. High Court
held that said questions were already covered by decision of Karnataka High Court in
case of CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd. [2013] 212 Taxman 454 and, therefore, no
substantial question of law arose for consideration. (AY. 2007-08)
Synopsys International Ltd. v. DDIT (IT) (2016) 76 taxmann.com 18 (Karn.)(HC)
Editorial: SLP was to be granted to the assesse, Synopsys International Ltd. v. DDIT (IT)
(2016) 243 Taxman 512 (SC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Fees for technical services 163
– Payment for pre-packed software is neither royalty nor fees for technical services –
As between provisions of agreement or Act which ever more beneficial to assessee is
applicable – DTAA-India-USA. [S.9(i), 90(3), Art. 12]
The Court had to consider whether the consideration received by the Assessee on sale
of pre-packaged software was “royalty” or “fee for technical services” and was, therefore,
not taxable as business income. HELD by the High Court dismissing the Department’s
appeal:
(i) It is not in dispute that Article 12(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement
(“DTAA”) between India and the United States of America (USA) is relevant for
deciding the above issue.
(ii) The short question considered by the Court in Director of Income Tax v. Infrasoft
Limited (2014) 220 Taxman 273 (Del) was whether the term “royalty” covered by
Article 12(3) of the DTAA would apply in the context of sale of pre-packaged
copyrighted software. The Court stated that it has not examined the effect of
the subsequent amendment to Section 9 (1) (vi) of the Act and also whether the
amount received for use of software would be royalty in terms thereof for the
reason that the Assessee is covered by the DTAA, the provisions of which are more
beneficial.
(iii) Section 90(3) of the Act makes it clear in the context of an agreement (‘treaty’) for
avoidance of double taxation, that it is only when the provisions of the Act are
more beneficial to the Assessee the Act will prevail over the treaty. Conversely,
where the provision of the treaty is more beneficial to the Assessee, the treaty
would prevail over the Act. This legal position has been reiterated in Director
of Income Tax v. Infrasoft Limited (supra) which was followed in dismissing the
Revenue’s appeal in the Assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 i.e. ITA No. 477 of
2014.
(iv) The Court is not persuaded to re-examine the above issue which stands answered
against the Revenue by the aforementioned order.( AY. 2009-10, 2010-11)
CIT v. Halliburton Export Inc (2016) 386 ITR 123 (Delhi)(HC)

53
 Income deemed to accrue or arise in India S.9(1)(vi)

164 S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Non-resident –

Providing data transmission services were not taxable in India – Amendment inserted
by Finance Act, 2012 have no effect unless DTAA is amended jointly by both parties
– DTAA-India-Thailand-Netherlands. [S. 2(30), Art. 12]
The assessees derived income from the “lease of transponders” of their respective
satellites. This lease was for the object of relaying signals of their customers ; both
resident and non-resident television channels that wished to broadcast their programs
for a particular audience situated in a particular part of the world. The assessees were
chosen because the footprint of their satellites, i.e. the area over which the satellite
could transmit its signal, included India. Having held the receipts taxable under section
9(1)(vi) of the Act, the Assessing Officer also held that the assessees would not get
the benefit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements between India and Thailand
and between India and Netherlands. The Tribunal held that they were not taxable in
India. On appeals to the High Court: Unless DTAA is jointly amended by both parties
to incorporate income from data transmission services as partaking of the nature of
royalty or amend definition in a manner so that such income automatically becomes
royalty, Finance Act, 2012 which inserted Explanation 4, 5, and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) by
itself would not affect the meaning of term ‘royalties’ as mentioned in article 12 of India
-Thailand DTAA, hence the receipts of the assessees from providing data transmission
services were not taxable in India. (AY. 2007-08, 2009-10)
DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV (2016) 382 ITR 114 / 238 Taxman 577 / 285 CTR 1 / 133
DTR 185 (Delhi)(HC)
DIT v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 114 / 238 Taxman 577 / 285 DTR 1
/ 133 DTR 185 (Delhi)(HC)
Editorial: SLP is granted to the Revenue; DIT v. New Skies Satellite B. V. (2016) 242
Taxman 3 (SC)

165 S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Payment made to
data relating to the geophysical and geological information about the east and west
coast of India was held to be not royalty hence not liable to deduct tax at source –
DTAA-India-USA-UK [S. 195, [Art. 12]
Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that the licence is for a fixed period and that on
the expiry of the licence, the assessee is required to return the product or destroy the
data accessed by the assessee during the licence period but is not required to destroy
the product produced by the assessee by use of such data. Thus, it is clear that access
to the technical knowledge is granted to the assessee in order to enable it to process
the same and use such data for furtherance of its objects. All that is provided by the
licensor was the data relating to the geophysical and geological information about the
east and west coast of India and it was not responsible for the accuracy or usefulness
of such data. Thus, licensors had only made available the data acquired by them and
available with them but was not making available any technology available for use of
such data by the assessee and hence payments made were not in nature of ‘Royalty’ as
per DTAAs with USA and UK. (AY. 2009-10)
GVK Oil & Gas Ltd. v. ADIT (IT) (2016) 158 ITD 215 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

54
S.9(1)(vi) Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Sale of copyrighted 166
software to customer along with licence ley – No copyright to use software or licence
given either to Indian distributor or customer – No royalty – One Contracting State
cannot unilaterally alter domestic provision and enlarge or amend scope under
Agreement – Amendment to S. 9 enlarging scope of royalty will not affect scope of
royalty under Article 12 of Treaty – DTAA-India-Netherlands [Art. 7, 12]
The Tribunal on Revenue’s appeal held that under the terms of the agreement
specifically prohibited decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling of the software,
modifying in any manner or sub-licensing of the software. The sine qua non for
payment to be royalty is that the payment must fall within scope of Article 12(4) of
the Treaty. The sale of software cannot be held to be covered under the words “use
of process” because the customer does not have any access to the source code. The
software product is available for use, but not the process embedded within. None of
the conditions mentioned u/s 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 were applicable to the said
transfer. The consideration received by the assessee was for sale of shrink wrapped
software and not royalty within Art. 12(a) of the Tax Treaty. Moreover, amendment
in the definition of “royalty” u/s. 9(1)(vi) vide Finance Act 2012 could not be read
into the Tax Treaty as the Treaty had not been correspondingly amended in line with
the enlarged definition. If a term has not been defined in the Treaty but under the
domestic law, then definition under the latter will be used to interpret the Agreement.
However, if a term has been specifically defined under the Treaty, then any reference
to the domestic law or any amendment to such term thereunder will have no bearing
on the definition under the Treaty, as one contracting State cannot unilaterally alter
its domestic provision to later the scope of the term under the Treaty except by
corresponding negotiation between the two States. Thus amended and enlarged scope
of “royalty” u/s. 9(1)(vi) has no bearing on the Tax Treaty. (AY. 2008-09)
ADIT (IT) v. Baan Global BV (2016) 49 ITR 73 (Mum.)(Trib.)
ITO v. SSA Global Technologies (I) P. Ltd. (2016) 49 ITR 73 (Mum.)(Trib.)
INFOR Global Solutions (Barneveld) BV v. DDIT (IT) (2016) 49 ITR 73 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Services was not 167
rendered by employees of branch office, hence royalty income earned on account of
technical agreement was chargeable to tax as ‘royalty’ income and not as business
income – DTAA-India-Italy [S.9(1)(i), Art. 13(1), (13(2)]
AO held that royalty income was effectively connected to permanent establishment
of assessee in India and, therefore, same was not chargeable to tax as royalty income
but as business income. On appeal Tribunal held that; in absence of any positive and
substantive material to effect that services had been rendered by employees of branch
office of assessee, royalty income earned by assessee on account of technical agreement
was not effectively connected with branch office of assessee and therefore, same was
chargeable to tax as ‘royalty’ income as per Article 13(1) and (2) at 20% and not as
business income at 41.82%. (AY. 2007-08, 2009-10)
Iveco Spa v. ADIT (IT (2016) 160 ITD 348 / 182 TTJ 464 / (2017) 147 DTR 353 (Delhi)
(Trib.)

55
 Income deemed to accrue or arise in India S.9(1)(vi)

168 S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Fees for technical
services – Payments received by the assessee from Indian entities on account of
connectivity charges are not taxable in India either as royalty or as fees for technical
services – DTAA-India-UK [S. 90, Art. 13]
The Tribunal held that, use of virtual voice network is standard facility provided by
the assessee in the course of its business of providing international telecommunication
network connectivity to various telecom operators with the help of certain scientific
equipment whereby no technology is made available. Therefore, the payments received
by the assessee from Indian entities on account of connectivity charges are not taxable
in India either as royalty or as fees for technical services under Art.13 of Indo-UK
DTAA. (AY. 2009-10)
Interroute Communication Ltd. v. DDIT(IT) (2016) 179 T TJ 355 / 139 DTR 175 / 68
taxmann.com 160 (Mum.)(Trib.)

169 S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – 10% and rate of
tax cannot be enhanced by including surcharge and education cess separately – DTAA-
India-French. [Art. 2, 13]
Provisions of Article 13 of Indo-French DTAA prescribing a cap of 10% on rate of tax,
read with article 2 thereof, would prevail over provisions of domestic income-tax and thus
tax liability on royalty income shall be capped at 10% and rate of tax @ 10% cannot be
enhanced by including surcharge and education cess separately. (AY. 2012-13)
Capgemini SA v. DCIT (2016) 160 ITD 13 (Mum.)(Trib.)

170 S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Embedded software
on hardware supplied is not royalty.
The Tribunal held that where the assessee, engaged in the business of development of
proprietary technology for automated evaluation of internal features of diamond, sold to
its customers machines used in the diamond industry along with operating application
software which was an integral part of the machine, payments received for the same
could not be treated as royalty since the software loaded on the hardware did not have
any independent existence and could not be used independently. The software was
supplied predominantly as a part of equipment and was an integral part thereof and
therefore the transaction was to be treated as a sale and purchase of machine and not
a sale and purchase of computer software. Consideration received by assessee for sale
of software supplied as part of machine to end user was not royalty under article 12
of DTAA between India and Israel as there was no transfer of copyright or any rights
therein nor was there any situation giving rise to any type of infringement of copyright
by customers of assessee. It held that the amendment made in section 9(1)(vi) by
way of insertion of an Explanation by Finance Act, 2012, for extending scope of term
‘Royalty’, could not be read into provisions of Article 12(3) of the Indo-Israel tax treaty
as amendment made in provisions of Act cannot be automatically read into articles of
treaty unless corresponding amendment is made in treaty as well. Since the payment
was not taxable as FTS and the assessee did not have a PE in India, the receipts from
sale of machinery could not be taxed in India. (AY.2011-12)
Galatea Ltd. v. DCIT (IT) (2016) 157 ITD 938 / 46 ITR 690 / 179 TTJ 265 / 138 DTR 161
(Mum.)(Trib.)
56
S.9(1)(vi) Income deemed to accrue or arise in India

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Assessee received 171
reimbursement from its India entity for use of equipment situated outside India and it
could not be established that same was on cost to cost basis, it was taxable as royalty
in India – DTAA-India-UK. [Art. 13]
Assessee, a UK based company, outsourced certain work to its Indian entity. It received
reimbursement from Indian entity for certain expenses. The A.O imposed tax on said
reimbursement. Total reimbursement, (a) one part pertained to third party costs directly
relatable to Indian entity and (b) balance part pertained to costs allocated to Indian
entity. Amount allocated to Indian entity pertained to use of equipment outside India
and, therefore, it constituted royalty as defined under article 13(3)(b). It could not be
said with certainty that said amount was on cost to cost basis, as it was taxable as
royalty in India. (AY. 2004-05)
Dy.CIT v. Vertex Customer Management Ltd. (2016) 158 ITD 365 / 178 TTJ 580 (Delhi)
(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi): Income – Deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalties and fees for 172
technical services/Software) – Consideration received by assessee for sale of software
claimed to have been supplied as part of machine to end user is not royalty – DTAA-
India-Israel. [Art. 12]
Assessee non-resident company sold to its customers machines and operating software.
In invoice issued by Assessee Company, consideration was mentioned separately for
machine and operating software. However, there was no separate transaction of sale of
software. Dominant character and essence of transaction was sale of machine by assessee
and software, independently, had no value for customer. Thus it was predominantly
transaction of sale of machine and therefore, it could not have been brought within
definition of ‘Royalty’ as envisaged in s. 9(1)(vi). Further in absence of there being any
P.E. of assessee in India, income arising from sale of machine could not have been taxed
in its hands in India. (AY.2010-11)
Galatea Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 938 / 46 ITR 690 / 179 TTJ 265 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Fees for technical services 173
– Consideration received for sale of computer software programme in CD Rom is not
assessable as “royalty”. The retrospective amendment in Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi)
to tax such receipts as royalty has no application to DTAA if the definition of the term
“royalty” in the DTAA has remained unchanged – DTAA-India-Netherland. [Art. 23(4)]
Dismissing the appeal of revenue the Tribunal held that (i) From the plain reading
of Article 23(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA it can be inferred that, it refers to
payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use
any ‘copyright’ of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph films, any
patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information
concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. Thus, in order to tax the
payment in question as “royalty”, it is sine qua non that the said payment must fall
within the ambit and scope of Para 4 of Article 12. The main emphasis on the payment
constituting ‘royalty’ in Para 4 is for a consideration for the ‘use of’ or the ‘right to use’
any copyright………. The key phrases “for the use” or “the right to use any copyright
of”; “any patent…….; “or process”, “or for information………,”; “or scientific experience”,
57
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India S.9(1)(vi)

etc., are important parameter for treating a transaction in the nature of “royalty”. If
the payment doesn’t fit within these parameters then it doesn’t fall within the terms
of “royalty” under Article 12(4). The Computer software does not fall under most of
the terms used in the Article barring “use of process” or “use of or right to use of
copyrights”. Here first of all, the sale of software cannot be held to be covered under
the word “use of process”, because the assessee has not allowed the end user to use the
process by using the software, as the customer does not have any access to the source
code. What is available for their use is software product as such and not the process
embedded in it. Several processes may be involved in making computer software but
what the customer uses is the software product as such and not the process, which are
involved into it. What is required to be examined in the impugned case as to whether
there is any use or right to use