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 : Allahabad High Court ruled that unlawful police custody directly infringes fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21....
Corporate Law : The Court examined whether a predicate FIR is necessary before the ED can act under the PMLA. It held that inquiry proceedings and...
Goods and Services Tax : The Rajasthan High Court examined whether GST registration could be refused due to non-filing of returns in another State. It held...
Corporate Law : The High Court held that a company cannot shift its registered office after approval of a resolution plan when appeals against the...
Corporate Law : The Allahabad High Court held that allegations arising from private land transactions and cheating claims did not satisfy the requ...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC has directed CBDT to ensure that there is a mandatory one-month gap between date for furnishing tax audit reports (unde...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court granted a one-month extension for filing TARs under Section 44AB for AY 2025-26, citing delayed audit utility...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court is hearing a petition from the Chartered Accountants Association regarding persistent glitches on the new I...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court observed that the documents produced indicated a sale of immovable property, which is not subject to GST. The matter was...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court remitted Section 74A GST orders for fresh adjudication after taxpayers argued that their replies to DRC-01 n...
Corporate Law : High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presu...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that GST authorities cannot issue a single show cause notice covering multiple financial years. The Cou...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Section 246A does not requi...
Income Tax : The Court held that membership cannot be granted where the underlying flats do not exist and are merely refuge areas. It ruled tha...
Corporate Law : Bombay High Court implements "Rules for Video Conferencing 2022" for all courts in Maharashtra, Goa, and union territories, effect...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
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...
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,
