Jharkhand High Court held that once penalty order is set aside, it will be presumed that there is no concealment and hence prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act will be quashed automatically.
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.
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.
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.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all the material facts.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High court observed that ChatGPT cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process.
In present facts of the case the matter was compromised on the first day of hearing wherein the broadcasting of the plaintiff’s jersey was in dispute without the permission of the plaintiff.
Narayani Industry Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) The esteemed Patna High Court, in the case of M/s. Narayani Industry v. State of Bihar [Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 11333 of 2023 dated August 11, 2023], ruled that in instances where a statute prescribes a definite timeframe for the condonation of delay, the Appellate Authority […]
Bombay High Court held that show cause notice should be adjudicated within a reasonable time and there should not be an egregious, unjustified and unexplained inordinate delay.
Kerala High Court held that clarification order accepts classification of Clohex and Clohex Plus as medicament, based on the fact that they were manufactured under a drug licence. However, there is no reason discernible from clarification order as to why Senquel-AD Mouthwash which is presented in a similar form cannot also be classified as a medicament.
