1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appeal Disposed; Liberty Granted to Re-approach Court After SC Review Petition Outcome for Potential Further Action.</h1> The Bombay HC disposed of the appeal, granting the appellant the liberty to re-approach the Court contingent upon the outcome of a pending review petition ... Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Taxability of receipts towards sale of software products - income from sale of shrink-wrapped software is taxable in India, being in the nature of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) as well as Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and USA - HELD THAT:- The issue in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT]. Nagraj submits that there is a review petition pending in the Supreme Court and therefore, Court may dispose the appeal with liberty to appellant to approach this Court to either revive the appeal or file a fresh appeal in case the review petition is allowed in favour of Revenue. The Bombay High Court, in the case of K.R. Shriram And Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ., disposed of the appeal with liberty for the appellant to approach the Court again depending on the outcome of a pending review petition in the Supreme Court. Ms. Sushma Nagaraj represented the appellant, while Mr. Paras Savla represented the respondents.