Held that TDI was not seeking a review, but rather, a discharge/ modification of the conditions prescribed in the said interim order. Accordingly, Arbitral Tribunal was entitled to exercise the said option, having regard to the principles enshrined under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC.
HC held that an Order under Section 241A of the Act cannot be passed in a mechanical and routine manner. Refunds cannot be withheld just because the Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued and the Respondents want to verify the claim for deduction under Section 10AA of the Act.
Application for payment of interest for delayed period was denied on the ground that due to Covid-19 processing of GST refund was delayed.
Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Through Liquidator Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) Held that any proceeding challenging a decision by the department in respect of tax, interest, penalty, fee etc. would come within the purview of a ‘dispute’ which would enable a party to approach the department for a resolution under the Direct Tax […]
Possible extent of claim likely to be awarded cannot be a foregone conclusion. Arbitrator fell in error by exercising Section 17 jurisdiction for securing the amount
Veena Joshi Vs CPIO (Delhi High Court) The Delhi High Court has held that the words “inspection of work” under Section 2(j) of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 does not include “inspection of property” under its ambit. Section 2(j) stipulates that right to information means the right to information accessible under the Act […]
Swastik Pipe Ltd Vs Dimple Verma (Delhi High Court) In terms of Section 7(4)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is clear that arbitration agreement can be derived from exchange of letters / telex / telegram or other means of communication including through electronic means and if it is shown that the parties are […]
Held that right to file the application u/s 8(1) of A&C Act, after the statutory period to file the written statement, is closed
Settled legal position is that in order for a shape trademark to be registered, it has to be shown that the said shape is not the generic shape of the product. It has to be a distinctive shape that associates the mark with the source by itself without anything further like a name or logo appended on it.
Best Buildwell Private Limited VS ITO (Delhi High Court) The show cause notice primarily states that ‘it is seen that the Petitioner has made purchases from certain non-filers’. However no details or any information of these entities was provided to the Petitioner. It is not understood as to how the Petitioner was to know which […]
