Jindal ITF Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) It is seen that the entities M/s Glebe Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Danta Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. have been used as conduits in availing unsecured loans covered u/s 68 of the Act. The identity and creditworthiness of the above companies and genuineness of the transaction […]
The issue under consideration is that the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent not to declare its pending loan accounts as Non Performing Assets (NPA). The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent for grant of moratorium of three months to it in terms of circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India(RBI).
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that RBI guidelines and package are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, in as much as, the petitioner was already in default as on 01.03.2020 and the package is applicable only to those instalments which fall due on 01.03.2020 and also only to those borrowers who were properly servicing their account till 01.02.2020 and were not in default.
Withholding of refund claims should be examined by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax with due application of mind and the entire exercise should be completed within the period of six weeks and the case of failure of Officers should transmit the amount including the interest to assessee without awaiting any further orders.
Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) After 01.04.2011, income falling within the scope of Section 44DA (1) of the Act would be excluded from the scope of Section 44BB of the If the income of a non-resident is in the nature of fees for technical services or royalty, it shall be taxable […]
Housing And Urban Development Corporation ltd Vs Add. CIT (Delhi High Court) The pay revision of employees of the appellant, a PSU is due every ten years with the expiry of one wage settlement or agreement. Invariably, there is a time lag between expiry of a wage revision and negotiation of a fresh wage revision. […]
In view of the outbreak of COVID-19, the functioning of this Court is restricted only to urgent matters vide Notification No.51/RG/DHC/dated 13.03.2020.
The issue under consideration is that the respondent had willfully defaulted in filing a return pursuant to the notices issued under Section 153A of the Act and thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Act.
Claudio De Simone & Ors. Vs. Acital Farmaceutica SRL. & Ors. (Delhi High Court); CS(OS) 576/2019, IA No.15741/2019, 17.03.2020 FACTS In the present case, Plaintiff No. 1 was an inventor of a US patent formulation namely; De Simone Formulation. The said formulation is highly concentrated bacterial formulation beneficial for pharmaceutical and dietary indications. In the year […]
In the present case, the Court by its reasoned order had refused to grant an injunction on the basis that the alleged infringing mark is descriptive in nature and does not tarnish the goodwill of the Plaintiff. Also the same is being used as a label by the Defendant and not as a trademark per se.
