https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780168 Whether a non-resident was "carrying on business" in India during years with no subsisting contract, so as to claim business expenditure deduction under s.37(1) r/w s.71 and carry forward unabsorbed depreciation under s.32(2), turned on whether there was mere lull or cessation of business. Applying the wide import of "business" and "for the purpose of business," the SC held that continuous commercial correspondence, attempts to supply manpower, and an unsuccessful bid evidenced a continuing intention and organised activity, and mere failure to secure a contract did not amount to cessation. The SC further held that a permanent establishment in India is not mandatory to have a business connection under ss.4, 5(2) and 9(1)(i). HC reversed; assessee's claims restored. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780168 Whether a non-resident was "carrying on business" in India during years with no subsisting contract, so as to claim business expenditure deduction under s.37(1) r/w s.71 and carry forward unabsorbed depreciation under s.32(2), turned on whether there was mere lull or cessation of business. Applying the wide import of "business" and "for the purpose of business," the SC held that continuous commercial correspondence, attempts to supply manpower, and an unsuccessful bid evidenced a continuing intention and organised activity, and mere failure to secure a contract did not amount to cessation. The SC further held that a permanent establishment in India is not mandatory to have a business connection under ss.4, 5(2) and 9(1)(i). HC reversed; assessee's claims restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780168