Pratibha-Mosinzhstroi Consortium Vs Commissioner of CGST (Delhi High Court) High Court held that Impugned order cannot cancelling GST Registration of Appellant be sustained for the following reasons which proves that entire Proceedings was Legally Flawed (i) Firstly, the SCN dated 08.07.2021 gave no clue whatsoever, as to what was the infraction committed by the petitioner-consortium, […]
Mere submission of emails & form 16A, do not, in any way, prove that there existed any relationship of employer employee between parties
Income from supply of CAS and middleware products to indian customers, does not fall under ‘royalty’ as defined under Section 9(l)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(3) of India- Swiss DTAA.
PCIT Vs Macquarie Global Services Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) HC held held that inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal took into account irrelevant consideration or excluded irrelevant factors in the ALP that impact significantly. In […]
Where assessee has mixed funds (made up partly of interest free funds and partly of interest bearing funds) and payment is made out of mixed fund, the investment must be considered to have been made out of interest free fund.
High Court held that non supply of notice for physical inspection during the search proceeding, before issuing an order, will be termed as violation of principle of natural justice.
Held that ad-interim injunction provided from the use of TATA in website tatabonus.com; crypto products by the name of $TATA or any other product being sold on the website www.hakunamatata.finance.
Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV) Vs Xiongwei Li (Delhi High Court) The proforma for issuance of the Look Out Circular indicates the nationality of the respondent to be that of China. As per the communication dated 19.2.2022 apart from the aspect of M/s Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited (HTICPL) and M/s Huawei Technologies […]
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that Payment Aggregators would fall under Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 as Payment Aggregator ensures that the money is transferred to the designated nodal account, and after a gap of a stipulated timeframe, which the petitioners say is three days, a settlement takes place and funds are transmitted to the merchant’s account.
As per the scheme of the Copyright Act, 1957 in order for any person to obtain copyright registration of an artistic work, which is being used or is capable of being used in respect of goods and services, the NOC is mandatorily to be obtained under the proviso of Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
