Supreme Court held that no borrower can, as a matter of right pray for a grant for the benefit of onetime settlement scheme and writ of mandamus cannot be issued by the High Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the financial institution/bank to positively grant a benefit of OTS to a borrower.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that by handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Honble Supreme Court held that the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be dismissed on the pendency of proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) initiated by the respondent for various acts of oppression and mismanagement as a minority shareholder.
Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and have upheld the contentions of the Revenue that TDS shall be deducted by the appellant of its employees while releasing payments to its employees for the Leave Travel Concession (LTC), when the trip has been made to the foreign countries.
The ITAT in the case of Transfer Pricing observed that the exclusion and inclusion of comparable companies could be determined on basis of the Judgments of Yahoo Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 115 taxmann.com 60 (Bang Trib) and Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. (IT(TP)A No. 2355/Bang/2019. Also while dealing with the issue of capitalisation of software expenses it was held that “period of license” cannot be considered but the kind of software “system software or application software” shall be taken into consideration.
The ITAT while dismissing the assessees appeal observed that the assessee has transferred his share of right and interest over the property in favour of his father through relinquishment deed dated 14.10.2014, which is after entering into sale agreement on 28.1.2014 and as per section 2(47)(i) of the Income Tax Act, transfer in relation to a capital asset, includes, the sale, exchange or relinquishment of assets. Therefore, the Order of AO wherein it was held that the assessee could not claim any exemption on the capital gains was upheld.
CESTAT observed that the products in question would be classifiable under CTH 85177090 and not CTH 85176290 based on HSN and the Departmental Circular could not run contrary to the Judicial Pronouncements.
ITAT held that the sale of SIM cards/recharge coupons at discounted rate to the distributors was not commission and therefore not liable to deduct the TDS under Section 194H.
Delhi High Court held that a suit, which contemplates urgent interim relief, is excluded from the rigor of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Thus, a plaintiff seeking to institute a suit involving urgent interim relief(s) is not required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation.
Sanjay Chadha Trading As M/S Eveready Tools Emporium Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) A well known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of Trademarks Act cannot be allowed to be infringed Conclusion: Delhi High Court dismissed appeals and restrained appellant from using word ‘EVEREADY’, as the same is a well-known mark due to […]
