Delhi High Court held that Amazon Web Services India Pvt. Ltd. (AWS India) is liable to withhold 8% (instead of 16%) tax of remittance on account of reseller fee paid to AWS USA.
Explore case of SMS Logistics vs. Commissioner of Customs, where punishment imposed on a customs broker is analyzed for proportionality and compliance with regulations.
In present facts of the case, Petitioner has been engaged in the business of marketing and manufacturing of footwear and fashion products and is the first user and proprietor of well-known trademark ‘LIBERTY’. On 01.04.2001, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Registered User Agreement in respect of trademark ‘LIBERTY’ in Class 25 for a period of three years.
Delhi High Court sets aside Assessment and Penalty Orders due to AO’s oversight and insufficient response time, remanding matters for a fair hearing.
The Delhi High Court’s judgment impacts how restaurants charge their customers. The term ‘Service Charge’ is replaced with ‘Staff Contribution,’ limited to 10% of the bill.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to provide valid reasons for reversing the CIT(A)’s decision on unexplained cash credits in the case of Om Shiva Traders Pvt Ltd Vs ITO.
Delhi High Court held that delay of 498 days in filing of an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act by the department officers cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown.
Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to a CA accused of forgery and GST evasion through false invoices from non-existent entities.
Delhi High Court held that Rule 8 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 is not ultra vires to Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court while considering the application under Trademarks Act have observed that it is well settled that a composite trademark is not to be dissected to determine whether there is any deceptive similarity with the impugned trademark and comparison has to be by taking the rival marks as a whole.
