The recent judgment of ITAT[1] Mumbai in the matter of Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited[2] (for brevity ‘Jio India’) is one of a classic judgment in dealing with the interpretation of phrases/expression that are used in DTAA[3] but which are not defined therein. In this article, we try to summarise the key findings of the said judgement.

Before we proceed to analyse and note the key findings, a peek into the facts of the matter involved is warranted. Jio India has a bandwidth services agreement with Reliance Jio Infocomm Pte Limited (for brevity ‘Jio Singapore’) and against such agreement Jio India has remitted a payment of US $ 15,91,520. While making such payment Jio has withheld tax under Section 195 of IT Act[4]. Jio India post payment of tax has filed an application before CIT(A)[5] under Section 248 praying for a declaration to the effect that such tax need not be withheld on the payments made to Jio Singapore.

Read more: Interpretation of Article 3(2) - Significance of phrase ‘Term’

Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended from time to time, has provided for tax rates applicable to the companies. From viewpoint of tax rate, the companies be classified into ‘domestic company[1]’ and ‘foreign company[2]’.

In this article we analyse the rate of income tax payable by ‘domestic company’ in light of changes brought into Taxation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance 2019.

Read more: Tax Rate Changes for Domestic Companies

The recent judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Limited & Others v Union of India[1] apart from holding the constitutional validity of the amendment made to Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) vide Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code Amendment Ordinance, 2018 (Amendment Ordinance) has held that the provisions of RERA laws should give way to the provisions of Code, when both of them clash. This article is an attempt to understand the fear of developers, the standpoint of allottees and the final verdict of the Court to the extent of the caption of the article. 

Read more: Clash of IBC and RERA Laws - IBC Wins

One of the most vexed question under the Hindu Law, is, whether a property acquires the character of self-acquired property or ancestral property. This is important because, if the property assumes character of self-acquired, then it falls into the hands of his sons as not coparcenary property, but would devolve upon on them in their individual capacity. In other words, the father has unfettered rights to do so with such property and neither his sons or grand sons would not have any claim on such property. However, if the property is held to be assuming the character of ancestral property, then the son, grand son and great grand son would acquire right in such property from the birth itself. In simpler words, the father cannot have unfettered rights qua such ancestral property and requires the consent of all the three downward generations, if existed, at the time of disposing such property.

Read more: Self Acquired vs Ancestral Property - Supreme Court Answers