"03 September 2023" Archive

Any mark being deceptively similar in respect of identical or similar goods would be contrary to S. 11 of Trademark Act

GM Modular PVT LTD Vs Gopal Shinghal & ANR (Delhi High Court)

The Honble High Court while allowing the Petition observed that a trademark being deceptively similar would be hit under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademark Act, 1999 which prohibits registration of a mark deceptively similar to a mark which is already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods....

Nostro Account Maintenance Charges are not subject to TDS u/s 195

ITO Vs Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai held that Nostro Account Maintenance Charges are in the nature of bank charges levied on transaction and the same are not subject to tax deduction at source u/s. 195 of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance of the same by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act unjustified....

Profit from Sale of Agricultural Land Stock is exempt, Not Business Receipt: ITAT

ITO Vs Essjay Enterprises (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT Delhi passed a significant judgment in ITO Vs Essjay Enterprises, focusing on classification of income derived from sale of agricultural land and shares. ...

Service Tax penalty under Section 76 & 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously

M D Engineers Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

CESTAT Ahmedabad in M D Engineers Vs C.C.E. & S.T. held that Service Tax penalty under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously....

Section 274 Penalty Notice invalid if Specific Fault/Charge Not Conveyed

DCIT Vs Sai Sugam Enterprises (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai ruling in DCIT Vs Sai Sugam Enterprises. declares penalty notices under section 274 as invalid if not specifying charge against assessee....

Investigation Report under S. 212(13) of Companies Act can only be provided to Concerned Person

Ranveer Singh Vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office (Delhi High Court)

In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the investigation report cannot be obtained under Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013 if the Person seeking report is not concerned with the case in any manner or in other words, do not comply the mandate of Section 212(1)(a) to (d) of the Companies Act, 2013....

Filing of refund claim u/s 27 after one year of date of excess duty payment is barred by limitation

Cummins Technologies India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)

Bombay High Court held that filing of refund application u/s. 27 of the Customs Act after more than two years of date on which excess duty payment was done is clearly beyond the period of one year as contemplated by the Customs Act and hence is barred by limitation....

CESTAT upholds redemption fine & penalty on Restricted Second-Hand Goods ETL Liners Import

American Power Conversion India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)

CESTAT Bangalore upholds customs redemption fine & penalty for importing second-hand ETL Liners, which are restricted under Foreign Trade Policy....

Fees for live and non-live transmission right not taxable as royalty

Cricket Australia Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT Delhi held that as there is no copyright on live events, the license fees for live and non-live transmission right cannot be taxed as royaty in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition deleted....

No Recording of Service of Notice: ITAT Sets Aside Revision Order

Citron Infraprojects Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT questioned whether notice issued under section 263 of the Act was properly served to assessee, as this is fundamental for upholding principles of natural justice....

Search Posts by Date

September 2023