“Section 9(1)(v)(e)”
The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(v)(e) is DIT v. E-Funds IT Solution (364 ITR 256), cited in 61 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(v)(e)
A subsidiary is an independent legal entity, and the mere relationship of holding-subsidiary or control by itself does not result in a Permanent Establishment (PE) for the foreign company in India, whether it be a fixed place PE or a dependent agent PE, even when the subsidiary provides outsourced services.
A statement made during a survey cannot be automatically retracted by the assessee; the burden is on the assessee to prove the statement was wrong. Therefore, such statements are relevant in penalty proceedings.
In penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), the initial burden is on the Revenue to prove that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The burden shifts to the assessee only if they fail to offer a satisfactory explanation for undisclosed income.
When lending money is not the business of a company, loans or advances given to an assessee-shareholder are treated as deemed dividends under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. The provisions of section 2(22)(e) apply to a company that has taken a loan from its subsidiary.
