PCIT Vs Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) present case is covered by the Division Bench judgment in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, [2015] 61 com 118 (Delhi), wherein this Court has held that the expression ‘does not form part of the total income’ in Section 14A of the Act means that there should […]
Whether ITAT erred in law in deleting addition as Income from Other Sources and holding it eligible for calculation of deduction under Sections 10A and 10B of Income Tax Act, 1961?
Swastik Plastics Vs Commissioner of DGST (Delhi High Court) 1. This writ petition came up for hearing for the first time on 05.04.2022, when after hearing the counsel for the parties, we had inter alia recorded the following: “2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.03.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Delhi […]
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).
