Analyzing Delhi High Court’s decision in Dhruv Suri Vs ITO. The court has directed the appellant to file tax return pursuant to Section 148.
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.
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.
Delhi High Court held that since no income chargeable to tax arose in the hands of the non-resident, as per the provisions of the Act, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) unjustified.
Delhi High Court held that as per Rule 34 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, a claim for refund of tax is liable to be made in Form DVAT-21 only if such a refund is not claimed in the return itself.
Singla Exports Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors. (Delhi High Court) In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court in Singla Exports v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors [W.P.(C) 2732 of 2023 dated August 09, 2023] has set aside an automated order which led to the cancellation […]
Delhi High Court rules in Boks Business Services Pvt Ltd Vs CGST on determining ‘intermediary’ under the IGST Act. Understand the principal service provider role.
Analysis of Delhi HC judgment on GST refund where a supplier was found non-existent. A pivotal decision ensuring rightful GST claims aren’t denied.
