Access significant and up-to-date high court judgments for legal insights and precedent. Stay informed about the latest legal decisions and their impact on various areas of law.
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court recent judgment highlights the alarming misuse of the POCSO Act, where cases are filed due to family objections t...
Corporate Law : J&K&L High Court quashes money laundering case against Farooq Abdullah, citing absence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention...
Corporate Law : Jharkhand HC directs the state to use its Special Branch to identify illegal immigrants allegedly from Bangladesh in six districts...
Corporate Law : Punjab & Haryana HC confirms that the Armed Forces Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the legality of a ‘displeasure award’ g...
Corporate Law : Bombay HC rules that relatives of a husband cannot be charged under Section 498A IPC solely for advising a wife to tolerate cruelt...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Goods and Services Tax : HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA: Ramesh Kumar Patodia v. Citi Bank [WPO NO. 547 OF 2019 JUNE 24, 2022 ] Facts: ♦ Petitioner is a holder ...
Goods and Services Tax : CGST, Gurugram (Anti Evasion) Vs Gaurav Dhir (Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Courts, Gurugram) U/s 132(1)) r/w 132(1)(b)(C)(e...
Corporate Law : In order to dispense with the physical signatures on the daily orders (which are not important/final orders and judgments) of the ...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court admits petition questioning Validity of provisions in Finance Act 2022 which overruled landmark Judgment of Supr...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras HC sets aside dismissal of GST appeal for delay, remands case to the appellate authority for fresh consideration despite th...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi HC grants interim protection to a petitioner alleging misuse of GST credentials for ITC claims, pending further investigatio...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay High Court held that amount payable has been quantified before 30th June 2019 and hence eligible to avail benefit under Sab...
Income Tax : Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from p...
Goods and Services Tax : Rajasthan HC ruled that appeals should be considered on merits, even if filed late, quashing a CGST order dismissing an appeal as ...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court mandates new video conferencing protocols to enhance transparency and accessibility in court proceedings. Rea...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department Issues Instructions for Assessing Officers after Adverse Observations of Hon. Allahabad High Court in in Civ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court has exempted the Lawyers from wearing Gowns practicing in the High Court with effect from March 2, 2022 till furt...
Corporate Law : Till further orders, all documents/ not summons/Daks through physical mode be dispensed with, except where there, is a specific or...
Income Tax : Hon’ble Judges to hear the matters physically at the Principal Seat at Bombay, on experimental basis with effect from 1st Decemb...
So far as the contention with regard to the disallowing the claim on the expenditure incurred on the purchase of two machineries is concerned, the counsel for the Revenue has urged that though with respect to the first machinery an advance payment was made within the Assessment year, with respect to the second machinery no payment at all was made.
Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS in respect of payments made for purchase of software as the same cannot be treated as income liable to tax in India as Royalty or Scientific Work under section 9 of the Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and treaties. Not correct, in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue
Simply because some incidental activity of the assessee is revenue generating, does not provide any justification to hold that it is tainted with “commerciality” and reaches a point where relationship of mutuality ends and that of trading begins.
The assessee made payments to a foreign company for purchase of ‘shrink-wrapped’/ready-made software without deduction of tax at source u/s 195 (1). The AO held that the payments were chargeable to tax in the hands of the foreign company as “royalty” u/s 9 (1) (vi) and that the assessee was liable u/s 201 for non-deduction of tax and interest thereon.
The fact involved in the present case is that the assessee is a branch of Samsung Electronics Co Company Limited, Korea, engaged in the development, manufacture and export of software for use by its parent company, i.e., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Korea. The assessee develops various kinds of software for telecommunication system for office appliances, for computer systems and for mobile devices etc.,. The software developed by the assessee is for in-house use by the parent company.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Karnataka High Court (HC) [ITA No. 2808 of 2005] in the case of Samsung Electronics and others (Taxpayers). The HC held that any payment resulting in any income in the hands of a non-resident would be subject to withholding tax under the Indian Tax Law (ITL). Unless an order is obtained from the Tax Authority for withholding tax at a lower rate or for not withholding tax, a taxpayer would need to withhold tax on the income at the applicable withholding tax rates, even if the income may not be taxable in the hands of the non-resident.
In all the appeals before us, the specific case of the assesses is that the BSE card acquired by them on or after 1/4/1998 is an intangible asset covered under the expression ‘licences’ or alternatively covered under the expression ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ enumerated in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, depreciation is allowable on the BSE card acquired by them.
CIT Vs. Db (India) Securities Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The assessee, a broker, purchased shares of the value of Rs.1,06,10,247 on behalf of its sub-broker. The sub-broker made payment of Rs.64 lakhs. As the remaining amount of Rs.41,37,881 was not paid, the assessee did not deliver those shares to the client though it offered the brokerage to tax.
The appellant/assessee, which is a HUF, sold its agricultural land for Rs.14,28,400/ – in September, 1995 giving rise to a long term capital gain of Rs.9,67,412/ -. The assessee claimed that the capital gain be not charged as it was entitled to the benefit of Section 54-F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The crux of the matter is: what is the meaning to be ascribed to the expression used for the purposes of the business as found in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision of Section 32 pertains to depreciation. The contention of the Revenue is that with respect to any machinery for which depreciation is claimed under Section 32,
