The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Orient Express held that services of non-resident agent facilitating the completion of export obligations cannot be termed as technical services provided in India because such services are not provided for the purposes of running of the business of the assessee in India.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of B4U International Holdings held that the agents of the foreign company if not exclusively working for assessee and they are not decision makers with no power of concluding contracts and as such their activities being incidental in nature.
Delhi High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Customs vs. Shri Ram Niwas Verma held that acceptance of application by settlement commission in respect of gold which is covered in sec 123 is without jurisdiction as 3rd proviso to Sec 127B (1) provide a clear bar on the applications made in respect of goods covered u/s 123.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Orion Enterprises held that as per Basmati Rice Rules if the rice doesn’t qualify as Basmati rice then the same cannot be exported as the export of non-Basmati rice is illegal and liable to confiscation.
The Hon’ble Karnataka HC in the above cited case held that there must be a direct nexus between the material coming to the notice of the Income-Tax Officer and the formation of his belief that income has escaped assessment.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alcatel Lucent Canada held that the income earned from the supply of hardware equipment where the embedded software facilitates the functioning of the equipmentcannot be taxed as royalty payments for use of software because there could not be any independent use of such software.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of ABB Inc cracking down the order of Dispute Resolution Panel held that the incomes earned by foreign company from India can be taxed in India only when the incomes are attributable to the PE of foreign company in India.
The ITAT bench of Panaji in the case of Sesa Resources Limited held that the disallowance under Sec 14A read with rule 8D can be made only in respect of investments which are earning income exempt from tax and not the total investments.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Escorts Ltd. held that the test of marketability fairly satisfies when it is shown that the product is commercially known and being capable of bought and sold. The same not being actually sold is totally irrelevant.
Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of B.P.L. Limited Vs. CCE held that the benefit of exemption notification is available only when the conditions of notification are strictly met by the assessee and no benefit can be allowed by taking liberal view of any condition.
