Category: Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 194C – Tax Deduction at Source – Applicability of Section 194C – Question of TDS under Section 194C(2) would have arisen only if the payment was made to a “sub-contractor” and that too, in pursuance of a contract for the purpose of “carrying whole or any part of work undertaken by the contractor” Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANY — Appellant Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Korea – Article 5(1) – No permanent establishment has been set up within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, as the Mumbai Project Office cannot be said to be a fixed place of business through which the core business of the Assessee was wholly or partly carried on.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LIMITED — Respondent ( Before…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80-O – Deduction – Income received in foreign exchange – Whether the income received by the appellants in foreign exchange, for the services provided by them to foreign enterprises, qualifies for deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as applicable during the respective assessment years from 1993-94 to 1997-98 – Held, NO. Appeal dismissed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMNATH AND COMPANY — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Tax Authorities Can’t Give Their Own Interpretations To Legislative Provisions On Perception Of Trade Practices : SC HELD There is no concept of ‘constructive delivery’ of goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and inter-state movement of goods will terminate only when physical delivery is taken.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER — Appellant Vs. M/S. BOMBAY MACHINERY STORE — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 194E – Payments made to the Non-Resident Sports Associations in the present case represented their income which accrued or arose or was deemed to have accrued or arisen in India. Consequently, the Appellant was liable to deduct Tax at Source in terms of Section 194E of the Act. Decided on : 29-04-2020

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PILCOM — Appellant Vs. C.I.T. WEST BENGAL-VII — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

In Partial Relief To Vodafone Idea, SC Allows Tax Refund Of Rs 773 Crores Held that since the statute now envisages exercise of power of withholding of refund in a particular manner, it goes without saying that for assessment year commencing after 01.04.2017 the requirements of Section 241-A of the Act must be satisfied.

In Partial Relief To Vodafone Idea, SC Allows Tax Refund Of Rs 773 Crores [Read Judgment] Mehal Jain 29 April 2020 2:48 PM GMT In a setback of sorts to…

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – Articles 5(3)(e) and 7 – Liability to tax under DTAA – Meaning of expressions “business connection” and “business activity” has been articulated. HELD And since by a legal fiction it is deemed not to be a PE of the respondent in India, it is not amenable to tax liability in terms of Article 7 of the DTAA – High Court justly reckoned the same as being of preparatory or auxiliary character, falling under Article 5(3)(e) – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. U.A.E. EXCHANGE CENTRE — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

SC Upholds The Constitutional Validity of Clause(f) of Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 HELD that clause (f) seeks to mitigate a mischief i.e. the absence of this clause would entail in a double benefit to the employer- advance deduction from tax liability without any burden of actual payment and refusal to pay as and when occasion arises.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh…

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 143(2) – HELD the factual basis on which the Officer formed his opinion in the assessment order dated 30.11.2000 (for assessment year 1998-1999), in regard to addition of Rs.2,26,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty six thousand only), stands dispelled by the affidavits and statements of the concerned unregistered dealers in penalty proceedings. That now being the indisputable position, it must necessarily follow that the addition of Rs.2,26,000/- cannot be justified,

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BASIR AHMED SISODIYA — Appellant Vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.