Three Imp Verdicts On Core Issues +

Sushila N. Rungta vs. TRO (Supreme Court)

Interpretation of statutes: Effect of repeal of a statute u/s 6 of the General Clauses Act on pending proceedings explained in the context of the Gold Control Act and in view of law laid down in State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh [1955] 1 SCR 893, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma (2003) 7 SCC 713 etc   

The statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that over 22 years, the results achieved under the Act have not been encouraging and the desired objectives for which the Act has been introduced have failed. Following the advice of experts, who have examined issues related to the Act, the objects and reasons goes on further to state that this Act has proved to be a regressive measure which has caused considerable dissatisfaction in the minds of the public and hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths. This being the case, we are of the opinion that the repeal simpliciter, in the present case, does not attract the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act as a contrary intention is very clearly expressed in the statement of objects and reasons to the 1990 repeal Act

PCIT vs. Talwalkars Fitness Club (Bombay High Court)

S. 2(47) Transfer for Capital Gains: The fact that an agreement for sale of property is registered does not make it a conveyance. The sale or transfer is not complete on the date of the execution of the agreement if there are obligations to be fulfilled by both parties

The sale or transfer was not complete on the date of the execution of the agreement as is now urged and erroneously understood by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner. The Tribunal was right in its conclusion that on facts, the agreement executed on 14th February, 2011 is but an agreement for sale of immovable property. The law then prevailing required such an agreement to be registered. In any event merely because it is registered, that does not partake the character of a conveyance or a sale deed automatically. Thus, the possession also was not handed over but was to be handed over on compliance with certain obligations by the Vendor

EPRSS Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Pune)

S. 9(1)(vi) Royalty/ 40(a)(i): Law explained on whether payment of web hosting charges to Amazon Web Services LLC (USA) (AWS) constitutes "royalty" under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) read with the India USA DTAA and whether there is any obligation to deduct TDS thereon u/s 195 

The aspect which needs to be seen is whether the assessee is paying consideration for getting any right in respect of any property. The assessee claims that it does not pay for such right but it only pays for the services. The claim of assessee before us was that it was only using services provided by Amazon and was not concerned with the rights in technology. The fees paid by assessee was for use of technology and cannot be said to be for use of royalty, which stands proved by the factum of charges being not fixed but variable i.e. it varies with the use of technology driven services and also use of such services does not give rise to any right in property of Amazon and consequently, Explanation under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is not attracted