Mahalaxmi Dye India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) A perusal of the paper book reveals that during the investigation it has been found that M/s Seema Enterprises is not involved in any real business and hence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it made payments in the course of […]
Delhi High Court held that attachment under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) does not result in the effacement of rights in property, it would clearly stand and survive outside the scope of a moratorium that comes into effect in terms of section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006.
Delhi High Court held that the consideration for the purchase of marketing and business rights for a period of twenty years is capital in nature and constitutes an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and therefore eligible to claim depreciation.
Delhi High Court held that AO is not empowered to frame block assessment merely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) without reference to any other material discovered during the search and seizure operations.
Delhi High Court held that the moratorium will cease to exist once the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code culminates.
Delhi high court held that there was no new/ fresh material before AO to initiate reassessment proceedings, accordingly, mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for initiating reassessment proceedings
Delhi High Court held that Registrar of Trade Marks has no power to condone delay in the filing of an application seeking review beyond expiry of one month from date of decision of which review is sought.
Delhi High Court on the issue of invention under Patents Act, 1970 observed that one of the sure tests in analysing the existence of inventive step would also be the time gap between the prior art document and the invention under consideration. If a long time has passed since the prior art was published and a simple change resulted in unpredictable advantages which no one had thought of for a long time, the Court would tilt in favour of holding that the invention is not obvious.
Delhi High Court held that Advertisement, Market and business Promotion (AMP) expenses incurred cannot be termed as an international transaction in the absence of any provision for the same in the agreement with Associated Enterprise.
Delhi High Court held that the interim moratorium under Section 96 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in respect of one of the guarantors would not ipso facto apply against a co-guarantor.
