September 4, 2025 5:54 am

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 195 – No TDS applicable on Indian Companies for amount Paid to use Foreign Software.

Bysclaw

Mar 7, 2021

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 276C(1) — Wilful attempt to evade tax — Prosecution for wilful attempt to evade tax requires proof of mens rea — Settlement Commission granted immunity from penalty after full disclosure, finding no suppression of facts or wilful evasion — Continuation of prosecution despite settlement order and lack of mens rea amounts to abuse of process of law.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

DTAA, India-UAE, Article 5(1) — Permanent Establishment — Definition of “fixed place of business” — The definition of Permanent Establishment requires a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on. The key test is whether the place is “at the disposal” of the enterprise, meaning the enterprise has the right to use the premises to carry on its business. Factors like stability, productivity, and a degree of independence are also considered.

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw

Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 139(5) — Revised Income Tax Return — The appellant filed multiple revised returns for the assessment year 1989-90, which were not considered due to being barred by limitation —Whether the assessing officer can consider claims made in a revised return filed after the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Act — The appellant argued that the assessing officer should consider the claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, even if the revised return was filed late —The respondent contended that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the assessing officer cannot consider claims in a time-barred revised return —The Court emphasized that the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is limited by the time constraints set in Section 139(5) —The Court referred to previous judgments, including Wipro Finance Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., to support its decision —The appeal was dismissed, affirming that claims in a time-barred revised return cannot be considered by the assessing officer.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw