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 Ifgl Refractories Ltd., Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T.-Range-6, Kolkata

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2647/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2647/Kol/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ifgl Refractories Ltd. Jcit, Range-6, Kolkata बनाम/ 3, Mcleod House, Netaji Subhas Road, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7 Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001. Chowringhee Square Vs. Kolkata – 700 069 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabci-7391-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 11/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 11/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 20, Kolkata [Cit(A)] Dated 07.11.2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.12.2011. 2. The Assessee Has Filed Additional Ground Of Appeal On 18.12.2020. Similar Ground Was Admitted By Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case For Ay 2012-13 In Ita No.684/Kol/2019 Order Dated 17/02/2021. Therefore, Considering The Same & Keeping In View The Ratio Down By Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of National Thermal Corporation Ltd. (229

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-Ld. DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 37