It is very unfortunate that the noble forum of PIL is now being used for blackmailing the citizens. This is not a PIL at all. It is, in fact, a litigation based upon certain photographs resulting in blackmailing type of litigation.
Court have categorically held that recovery of demand against issues which have been decided in favour of Assessee is wholly unwarranted.
There was no need for filing this appeal due to subsequent ITAT order & Income Tax department expresses regret for filing infructuous appeal
Held that disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) unsustainable as the amount of employees’ contribution to the provident fund deposited before filing of return.
Held that overall visual representation adopted by the defendants using mark facebake/ facecake clearly depicts the mala fide intent in obtaining unfair advantage by use of the mark similar to the plaintiff i.e. facebook
Held that the Defendants use of the mark KHADI would be violative of the Plaintiffs rights in the said mark, and that such use would also cause immense harm to the consumers in view of the nature of the products which are being sold by the Defendants, the present suit is liable to be decreed.
Assessee need not file any separate claim for Income Tax refund as same is deemed to incorporated in return filed by assessee itself
Assessee found entitled to refund of money deposited by it upon re-computation by Revenue & interest thereon is liable to be paid under Section 244A(1)(b)
To claim deduction on account of bad debts, two conditions have to be met by the Assessee i.e. (i) the bad debts must have been taken into account in computing the income of the Assessee of previous year or of an earlier/previous year and; (ii) the bad debts should have been written off in the accounts of the Assessee.
Withholding certificate at a low tax rate rejected for huge outstanding demand, although same were due to pending rectification applications
