Nagesh Trading CO. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Directions given by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) were applicable to cases, where notices under Section 148 of the Act had been issued during the period 01st April, 2021 to 30th June, 2021 – which is not the case in the present matter. Consequently, the […]
If foundational allegation is missing in notice issued under Section 148A(b) , the same cannot be incorporated by issuing a supplementary notice.
Delhi HC granted permanent injunction to INTEL on the ground that the lis no longer exists between the parties and the Defendants were willing to suffer permanent injunction in terms of the prayer clause 37(i) & (ii) of the plaint, which was pertaining to prevent defendants to use the word INTEL as their trademark and trade name.
Delhi HC upheld the compensation awarded under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 by Commissioner and have upheld that a person whose employment is of a casual nature and is employed other than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business comes within the meaning of employee as defined in Section 2(1)(dd) of Employees Compensation Act.
PCIT Vs Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s. Ferns ‘N’ Petals (Delhi High Court) There is no such statement in the present case which can be said to constitute an admission by the Assessee of a failure to record any transaction in the accounts of the Assessee for the AYs in question. On the contrary, the Assessee […]
Delhi HC granted permanent injunction and compensation to the plaintiff as the triple identity test of identical/deceptively similar trademarks, identical services and trade channels stands satisfied and use of the impugned trademarks/domain name by Defendant constitutes infringement of the Plaintiffs registered trademarks in present facts of the case.
Delhi High Court while dismissing the appeal on the plea of trademark infringement have observed that the particular word (Vasundhara) in dispute in this case is a common name in India and an exclusive right to use the same cannot be granted to the plaintiff and he does not enjoy the monopoly for use of the said word (Vasundhara).
Delhi High Court held that section 195 of the Act has no application once the nature of payment is determined as salary and deduction has been made under Section 192 of the Act.
Boutique International Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Court finds that the information furnished to the Petitioner and the impugned order do not specify in which bank account or account number, the alleged amount have been received by the Petitioner. Though the impugned order states that the asset is represented by bogus accommodation entries in […]
PCIT Vs Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Ltd. (Formerly Known As Global Heritage Venture Ltd.) (Delhi High Court) High Court held that till the final award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal determining the ownership of the fixed deposits (FDS) and interest, it could not be said that the interest income had crystallized in the respondent’s hands […]
