Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 115-O is CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (404 ITR 719), cited in 174 of the 331 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115-O

CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
404 ITR 719 · 2018 · Supreme Court
174
citing judgments

When calculating deductions under sections like 10A or 10AA, any expenses or items reduced from 'export turnover' in the numerator must also be reduced from 'total turnover' in the denominator to ensure consistent application of the deduction formula.

CIT v. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd.
87 Taxmann.com 182 · 2017 · High Court
120
citing judgments

Incidental income like interest on bank deposits or staff loans, earned by an undertaking eligible for deductions under sections 10A and 10B, constitutes part of the 'profit and gains of the undertaking' and is thus eligible for 100% deduction, as it arises in the ordinary course of the export business even if not a direct result of export.

CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.
318 ITR 476 · 2009 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Genuine trade advances or amounts advanced for bona fide business transactions, driven by commercial expediency, do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raj Kumar
318 ITR 462 · 2009 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Genuine trade advances made by a company in the ordinary course of business to a shareholder do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT
96 Taxmann.com 263 · 2018 · ITAT
116
citing judgments

A high turnover criterion, such as above Rs. 200 crores, is a valid ground to exclude companies from the list of comparable companies in a transfer pricing analysis, as such companies are not comparable to those with significantly lower turnover.

DCIT v. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 332 · 2023 · ITAT
115
citing judgments
CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah
290 ITR 433 · 2007 · Supreme Court
99
citing judgments

For Section 2(22)(e) to apply, a payment by a company must be in the nature of a loan or advance, and the company must have accumulated profits. Such payments to a concern in which a shareholder, holding more than 10% voting power, has a substantial interest are deemed dividends if the shareholder ultimately benefits, even if routed through different modes or concerns.

CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.
142 ITR 493 · 1983 · High Court
95
citing judgments

Pure reimbursement of expenditure does not constitute income in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services, therefore eliminating the obligation to deduct tax at source.

CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd.
202 ITR 1014 · 1993 · High Court
94
citing judgments

Reimbursement of expenses, where there is no profit element included, does not constitute taxable income. Recoveries made by an assessee that merely reduce its cost, without netting off any income from expenses, are not income.

Bagmane Constructions (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.
318 ITR 376 · 2009 · High Court
81
citing judgments

The provisions of Section 2(22)(e) regarding deemed dividends do not apply to transactions between a shareholder and a company that create mutual benefits and obligations, such as trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions.

Judgments on Section 115-O

M/S Shree Saibalaji Securities Pvt Ltd, Salem vs. ACIT Circle 2, Salem

ITA 3172/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1586/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Shree Saibalaji Securities Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit बनाम No. 241-F, 1St Floor, 4Th Cross Salem. / Vs. Brindavan Road, Fairlands, Salem – 636 016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs-2804-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.3172/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Shree Saibalaji Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम No. 241-F, 1St Floor, 4Th Cross Circle -2, / Vs. Brindavan Road, Fairlands, Salem – 636 016. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs-2804-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan (Advocate) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. M. Rajan (Cit) & Shri. P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-04-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders. In Ita No.1586/Chny/2018, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan (Advocate) –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan (CIT) &
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 2(22)(b)Section 263

Excel Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. The CIT -CC-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleexcel Industries Ltd Vs. The Cit-Cc 6(3) 184-87, Excel Estate, 19Th Floor, Air India Sv Road, Jogeshwari Bldg, Nariman Point, (West)Mumbai – 400102 Mumbai – 400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace2488F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Kirit Kamdar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Ajay Kumar. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs. 1,00,50,000/- Out Of Interest Paid Attributable To Loan To A Subsidiary. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Levying An Amount Of Rs. 5,42,910/- On Account Excel Industries Ltd, Mumbai. Of Interest U/S 115P For Dividend Distributed Under Section 115-O, For Which Dividend Distribution Tax Had Already Been Paid. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground On Additions Made To Book Profits U/S 115Jb.

For Appellant: Mr.Kirit Kamdar. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ajay Kumar. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)