Madras High Court held that payment made for International Private Leased Circuits [IPLC] doesn’t constitute royalty within the expression provided under clause (iva) to Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act not sustained.
Bombay High Court held that conviction under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] without cogent evidence to prove demand of illegal gratification cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Bombay High Court quashed and set aside Form SVLDRS 3 demanding amount under arrears category and directed department to determine the correct amount considering the declaration filed under Litigation category.
Karnataka HC confirms that compensation for land acquired under National Highways Act after 01.01.2014 is fully exempt under Section 96 of RFCTLARR Act, preventing any TDS or income tax deduction.
Delhi High Court held that successive Bail Application filed with no change in circumstances is liable to be dismissed. Further, bail application is dismissed since applicant has already been declared an offender.
Court held that exemption under Section 10(23BBA) applies only to bodies constituted under State enactments, not to temples or deities whose income is separately taxable. Temples must seek relief under Sections 11–12 instead.
Court held that dividend remains income of the shareholder and DDT is an additional income tax covered under Article 2, restricting India’s taxing rights to 10% under Article 11 of the India–UK DTAA.
The Court held that the Department could not establish delivery of hearing notices or the order dispatched through speed post. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after providing documents and a proper hearing.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that parts replaced during warranty and AMC periods are taxable, applying the Supreme Court’s Tata Motors judgment. Tax liability arises even if no direct payment is charged to customers.
The Court held that pre-SCN consultation became discretionary after the 2020 amendment, rendering the petitioner’s challenge untenable. It directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.
