Deputy Director of Income Tax Vs Bhavya Bishnoi & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Application to release passport under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 dismissed on account of Lookout Circular issued against the applicant. Facts- This application has been filed by Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi, father of the respondent […]
CIT Vs Microsoft Corporation (Delhi High Court) The amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to nonresident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to […]
Court is of the view that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed in great haste and in gross violation of principle of natural justice as the Petitioner was not given reasonable time to file a reply.
Pradeep Kumar Varshney Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in the present case notice under Section 148A is not warranted as it is a case of Section 153C of the Act to which proviso (c) of Section 148A applies. In response to a pointed query, Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned […]
Goel Road Carriers Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) HC noted the fact that refund has been adjusted against the outstanding tax demand by the Authority without following the due procedure prescribed under Section 245 inasmuch as no notice or opportunity of pre-decisional hearing had been provided to the petitioner prior to such adjustment […]
Voluntary statements cannot constitute pre-show cause notice consultation as envisaged in the paragraph 5 of the 2017 Master Circular.
Court is of the view that the delay of one day in asking for an adjournment should not have led to closure of the right to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice.
Shri Sai Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) In the present case, though the petitioner responded to the show cause notice, yet it could not provide all the relevant details and documents, as the time period of three days to respond to the show cause notice was inadequate. Consequently, this […]
Restrained the defendants from offering or advertising any goods or services, using or registering corporate names, domain names or pages bearing the trademarks BURGER KING, BK and/ or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademarks.
The Arbitral Tribunal had thus, articulated the terms of appointment unequivocally and unambiguously. It had made it clear to the parties that its appointment and the proceedings before them would not be governed by ICADR Rules. Accordingly, arbitral tribunal is not bound by ICADR rules for fixation of the fees
