In the 1st week of October, 2009, the petitioner came to know that the respondents have infringed its trademark by using the word ‘Arnimax’ on its products coupled with the trade dress and thereby has infringed the registered trademark and passed off its products as that of the petitioner. Accordingly, C.S. 360 of 2009 was filed and an interim order passed on 19th February, 2010 restraining the respondent from dealing with, offering for sale, advertising, marketing or publicising the impugned trademark ‘Arnimax’. Such order was continued on 8th April, 2010 and direction given for filing affidavits. An affidavit has been filed and a No Objection Certificate dated 9th December, 2002 has been relied upon by the respondent. Such No Objection Certificate was given by one Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. No certificate of the petitioner has been produced. In fact on a comparison of the signature of the person who is the signatory to the certificate with the signature in the Indenture of Lease dated 25th March, 1988 the said signature will not tally. The licence given to Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. by the owners of the registered trademark did not include the registered trademark ‘Arnimax’. Therefore, neither Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. nor anyone deriving a right thereunder could have issued the No Objection Certificate. No document evidencing sale, registration or user has been produced by the respondent therefore the case of infringement made out subsists and the order dated 19th February, 2010 and subsequent orders passed be confirmed.
CIT Vs. S R M B Udyog Ltd. (Kokata High Court)- Under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, effect of amalgamation is winding up of the transferor company. Moreover, from the terms of the amalgamation which have been accepted by this Hon’ble Court, it appears that whatever proceedings were pending or were sought to be initiated after the date of the order of amalgamation, were to to done against the transferee company. Under such circumstancs, we could gather from the facts that the appeal was preferred by SRMB Udyog Ltd. before the Commissioner of Income Tax after the order of amalgamation was passed; similarly the department preferred an appeal subsequently. It is settled law that no proceedings can be brought against a nonexistent person either natural or artificial.
Court has held that amendment made in section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective in nature and would apply from 01.04.2005. The said amendment provides that no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could be made where the TDS has been paid before the due date of filing of return of income. This is first ruling of any High Court on this issue.
S K Bothra & Sons, HUF Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court) – When the assessee has discharged the initial burden to prove the loan transaction, the addition made by the AO based on the report of the Inspector without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain the alleged information, is not correct.- In our view, equity and justice demand that the full text of the information given by the Inspector to the Assessing Officer which is the basis of the conclusion of the assessment should be made known to the assessee before the same is used against him so that the genuineness of the said information can be rebutted by the appellant-assessee or at least, the assessee can get an opportunity to explain the said information.
Duncans Industries Limited Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Under S. 80-HHC (1) the deduction is to be given in computing the total income of the assessee. In computing the total income of the assessee both profits as well as losses will have to be taken into consideration. Section 80-AB is relevant.
The Court held that an order sanctioning a scheme under section 394 of the Companies Act falls within the description of the words ‘instrument’ and `conveyance’ within the meaning of the West Bengal Stamp Act, 1964. Accordingly, it is subject to stamp duty. The Court also observed that no property transferred pursuant to any scheme in the State of West Bengal would be effective unless appropriate stamp duty is paid. This ruling may be relevant in the States which do not have a specific clause for merger/demerger under sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the conveyance entry in the Stamp duty schedule.
CIT Vs. Dataware Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Assessee’s AO cannot question Creditor’s Income Tax Return instead he should inquire with creditor’s AO
After going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., we find that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the Sec 43(B) of the Income Tax Act
Bhura Exports Ltd Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court, Decided on August 30, 2011)- When the limitation provided earlier in Section 231 of the Act for taking action u/s 201 has been omitted with effect from April 1, 1989 and was re-introduced by way of addition of sub-Section (3) of Section 201 with effect from April 1, 2010, there is no bar of the period of limitation for taking action under Section 201 of the Act.
Status Home and Enclaves (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in withdrawing the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) merely because the Development Agreement was not produced before the Assessing Officer when the said agreement was duly submitted before the considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and no objection in that regard was raised by the Department either in the ground of appeal or in course of argument nor the Tribunal require production of the agreement?
