Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.49 seconds)
Sabre Marketing Nederland, Bv,New ... vs Acit, Circle- 3(1)(2), International ... on 7 January, 2026
cites
Finance Act, 2012
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 5 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Verizon Communications Singapore Pte ... vs I.T.Officer, International Taxation on 16 July, 2014
In a judgment by the Madras High Court in Verizon Communications Singapore
Pte Ltd. v. ITO, International Taxation [2014] 361 ITR575/224 Taxman 237
(Mag.)/[2013] 39 taxmann.com 70, the Court held the Explanations to be applicable
to not only the domestic definition but also carried them to influence the meaning of
royalty under Article 12. Notably, in both cases, the clarificatory nature of the
amendment was not questioned, but was instead applied squarely to assessment
years predating the amendment. The crucial difference between the judgments
however lies in the application of the amendments to the DTAA.
Dcit 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs Hindustan Construction Ltd, Mumbai on 13 January, 2020
58. Nevertheless, whether or not punctuation plays an important part in statute
interpretation, the construction Parliament gives to such punctuation, or in this
case, the irrelevancy that it imputes to it, cannot be carried over to an international
instrument where such comma may or may not have been evidence of a deliberate
inclusion to influence the reading of the section. There is sufficient evidence for us
to conclude that the process referred to in Article 12 must in fact be a secret process
and was always meant to be such. In any event, the precincts of Indian law may not
dictate such conclusion. That conclusion must be the result of an interpretation of
the words employed in the law and the treatises, and discussions that are applicable
and specially formulated for the purpose of that definition. The following extract
from Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd's case (supra) takes note of the
OECD Commentary and Klaus Vogel on Double Tax Conventions, to show that the
process must in fact be secret and that specifically, income from data transmission
services do not partake of the nature of royalty.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Loyal Textile Ltd. on 28 January, 1997
56. The courts have however created an exception to the general rule that
punctuation is not to be looked at to ascertain meaning. That exception operates
wherever a statute is carefully punctuated. Only then should weight undoubtedly be
given to punctuation; CIT v. Loyal Textile Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 573/[1997] 95
Taxman 293 (Mad.
Sama Alana Abdulla vs The State Of Gujarat on 16 November, 1995
); Sama Alana Abdulla v. State of Gujarat AIR 1996 SC
569; Mohd Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 564; Lewis Pugh Evans
Pugh v. Ashutosh Sen AIR 1929 SC 69; Ashwini Kumar Ghose v. Arbinda Bose AIR
1952 SC 369; Pope Alliance Corpn. v. Spanish River Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. AIR
1929 PC 38 An illustration of the aid derived from punctuation may be furnished
from the case of Mohd. Shabbir (supra) where Section 27 of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 came up for construction. By this section whoever
"manufactures for sale, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes" a drug
without a license is liable for punishment. In holding that mere stocking shall not
Page | 10
ITA No. 410, 7534 & 381
Sabre Marketing Nederland, BV
amount to an offence under the section, the Supreme Court pointed out the presence
of comma after "manufactures for sale" and "sells"and the absence of any comma
after "stocks" was indicative of the fact "stocks" was to be read along with "for
sale" and not in a manner so as to be divorced from it, an interpretation which
would have been sound had there been a comma after the word "stocks". It was
therefore held that only stocking for the purpose of sale would amount to an offence
but not mere stocking.
Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979
); Sama Alana Abdulla v. State of Gujarat AIR 1996 SC
569; Mohd Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 564; Lewis Pugh Evans
Pugh v. Ashutosh Sen AIR 1929 SC 69; Ashwini Kumar Ghose v. Arbinda Bose AIR
1952 SC 369; Pope Alliance Corpn. v. Spanish River Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. AIR
1929 PC 38 An illustration of the aid derived from punctuation may be furnished
from the case of Mohd. Shabbir (supra) where Section 27 of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 came up for construction. By this section whoever
"manufactures for sale, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes" a drug
without a license is liable for punishment. In holding that mere stocking shall not
Page | 10
ITA No. 410, 7534 & 381
Sabre Marketing Nederland, BV
amount to an offence under the section, the Supreme Court pointed out the presence
of comma after "manufactures for sale" and "sells"and the absence of any comma
after "stocks" was indicative of the fact "stocks" was to be read along with "for
sale" and not in a manner so as to be divorced from it, an interpretation which
would have been sound had there been a comma after the word "stocks". It was
therefore held that only stocking for the purpose of sale would amount to an offence
but not mere stocking.