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

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

ACIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurnce Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5655/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5655/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit 1(2)-1, M/S. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, Life Insurance Ltd. बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Vinay Bhavya Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 159A, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco 3983 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anadi Varma ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Chetan Kakka सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.09.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 27.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Mumbai, In Appeal No. Cit(A)-2/It-235/2014-15 Dated 01.09.2015. The Assessment Was Framed By Acit-1(2)(1), Mumbai For The A.Y. 2012-13 Vide His Order Dated 29.12.2014 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Anadi VarmaFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agrawal &
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 44

Jaidev R. Shroff, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 6(3) Earstwhile ACIT - CC-38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4660/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shuklajaidev R. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aalps9283N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Rajnikant D. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Uniphos House, 11Th Road, Mumbai. Vs. Cd Marg, Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aalps9281Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Vikram R. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaops8597C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) फनाभ/ Sandra R. Shroff, Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Ahhps2731G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Precy Pardiwala, Mr. JasFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 47Section 56(1)(viia)Section 56(2)(vii)