The Tribunal is not authorized to extend stay of demand beyond maximum period of 365 days. The decision of Tribunal to extend stay of demand beyond 365 days amounted to contravention of provisions of the law.( Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited and B. Fouress Private Limited v. CIT (ITA. No. 160&161/2012)]

Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, which provides for furnishing a permanent account number, is contrary to Section 139A and discriminatory and therefore, read down from the statute for those persons, whose income is less than the taxable limit [A. Kowsalya & Others v. Union of India & Others (W.P 12780-12782/2010)]

Management service charges paid to AE by the assessee, which is closely linked to core business activities of the assessee, benchmarked by applying TNMM at entity level is held to be appropriate. Need and benefit from intra-group management services demonstrated by the assessee upheld – [McCann Erickson India Pvt. Ltd. v. ADCIT (ITA No. 5871/D/2011)]

This is a unique Ruling rendered by the AAR wherein the concept of PE of a group of companies has been discussed. It is well known that a subsidiary of a foreign company is not enough to qualify the former as a PE of later or its group companies. The mere existence of a company control is not, in fact, enough, in accordance with Article 5 of the OECD Model, However, considering the peculiar facts of the case, in this ruling the AAR has observed that 100% subsidiary is created for the purpose of attending to the business of the Group in India and therefore, such Indian subsidiary must be taken to be a PE of the Group in India.