J K College Of Nursing & Paramedicals vs. UOI & ORS (Delhi High Court)- It was held that if any establishment or employer claims to be not covered under the said Act, then it is for the employer to place sufficient cogent and convincing material before the designated authority in an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act, so as to satisfy the Authority with regard to non-applicability of the Act and further held that on failure to place any such material, the onus cannot be shifted on the EPF authorities to prove the applicability of the Act. It was yet further held that the EPF authorities under no circumstances can be in possession of necessary records evidencing the extent of strength of employees in any particular establishment.
Delhi HC Reserves the Judgement in the case related to applicability of of service tax on renting of immovable Property on 20.05.2011 after hearing the submission of by way of rejoinder from Sr. Counsels Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. S. Ganesh and Mr. PK Sahu, Advocate (a fromer IRS officer). To ascertain whether renting of immovable property is taxable service or not, the test should not be whether there is value addition or not. The concept of value added tax is different for different tax laws.
HLS India Ltd. (2011) 11 taxmann.com 83 (Delhi) – The wireline logging and perforation services provided to oil companies amount to manufacturing and production of article or thing and therefore provider of such services will be regarded as industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 32A, 80-IA and 80-IB. The wireline logging and perforation equipment employed by taxpayer is eligible for 100% depreciation even though the service provider is not itself producing any oil nor is engaged in the activity of oil drilling.
The Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal recently pronounced its ruling in the case of Haworth (India) Private Limited v. DCITwherein it upheld Revenue’s contention that arm’s length price can be determined under transactional net margin method even with one comparable company. Besides, the decision also deals with several other important aspects of the manner of application of TNMM, viz. method of making adjustments to the results, use of current year data, benefit of +/- 5% range and functional comparability.
The Delhi high court has dismissed the writ petition of French company Champagne Moet & Chandon objecting to the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board dismissing its appeal against an order of the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks in a trade mark case. The company is a well-known manufacture of wines which it is selling under the trademark Moet, Moet & Chandon and other brands in more than 150 countries of the world, including India. It objected to a Delhi firm selling meat products adopting the name M/s Moets. CHAMPAGNE MOET AND CHANDON versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS (Delhi high Court- 19.05.2011)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Manjit Singh & Ors. on 18 May, 2011 – An insurance company would not be liable for payment of compensation in a motor vehicle accident if the driver had been transporting passengers on a learner’s licence, the Delhi High Court held in the case, New India Assurance Ltd vs Manjit singh. However, the company has to pay the decreed amount to the claimants first and then recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, the judgment said. In this case, a woman died when an auto rickshaw turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving. One of the issues raised was whether the insurance company would be absolved from the liability to pay. The company argued that the driver and owner had violated the terms of the insurance policy by allowing the vehicle to be driven by one without proper and valid licence. The high court ruled that transporting passengers on a learner’s licence, without being accompanied by a licensed driver, would be violation of the insurance policy and the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation amount.
Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi.(Delhi High Court) – The challenge by the petitioners is primarily to the fee prescribed for grant of permission. However, certain other terms and conditions imposed are also challenged. It is the contention of the petitioners that imposition of fee and any other condition for installation of towers is beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of MCD. The writ petitions were accompanied with applications for interim relief.
The assessee who was not the shareholders of M/s. Jackson Generators (P) Ltd. (JGPL) could be treated as covered by the definition of ‘dividend’ as contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘). This issue has arisen under the following circumstances.
IFCI Ltd. Versus TFCI Ltd.- Delhi High Court – Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant company (hereinafter referred to as ‘IFCI’) owns 37.85% of shares of respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as ‘TFCI’). On 26th November, 2010 IFCI sent a requisition to TFCI for convening an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (for short ‘EOGM’) with the objective of appointing four new directors and removal and replacement of one director on the Board of TFCI. However, TFCI vide letter dated 2nd December, 2010 questioned the validity of the requisition on the ground that though it was signed by the Company Secretary of IFCI, but specific authorisation/board resolution to file such requisition had not been annexed and it requested IFCI to send the said board resolution within a period of one week. Subsequently, on not getting the said information, TFCI through its board meeting held on 14th December, 2010 decided not to convene EOGM of TFCI. On receiving this information, IFCI on 15th December, 2010 initiated the process under Section 169(6) of the Act for convening an EOGM on 17th January, 2011. IFCI then filed the present Company Petition No. 124(ND) of 2010 under Sections 398 and 402 of the Act on the same day.
Mohan Meakin Limited vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Merely because the claim was not made out under one particular provision of the Act, but was so made out under another provision of law, the assessee could not be debarred to raise such legal question. It is legally permissible to raise question of deduction under Section 37 of the Act even if it was not raised before the authorities below.
