In the present case, the dispute arose for the aforementioned reason as it is the case of the Plaintiff that the adoption of the deceptively similar expression Magical Masala by the defendant in the year 2013 for marketing their noodles amounts to passing-off.
The word Magic is laudatory. It is incapable of being appropriated by the plaintiff. As such no person can claim any monopoly over the said word Magic or Magical or their derivative as they are common to the trade. Therefore, it is incapable of being monopolised by any trader.
The issue under consideration is whether ITAT was right in law in holding Section 50B i.e slump sale was not applicable in present case of assessee?
The issue under consideration is the rejection of stay of demand by the assessing authority without offering an opportunity of heard is justified in law?
The petitioner states that since no provisional ID was received from GSTN, it proceeded to utilise an ID using random units that, admittedly, has no basis and was defective. Using this ID, business was conducted during the period 01.07.2017 to 21.08.2017 and credit was also earned.
AO was not justified in reopening of assessment after four years as on an independent application of mind and on thorough consideration of material aspects and legal position,there was no failure on the part of assessee.
Works contract for fitting out or implanting of prosthetics into the physiology or the body of the patient for alleviation of pain or for improvement of the life of the patient in the course of medical/surgical procedure could be construed as ‘works contract’ liable for VAT under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
As against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate on a complaint, an appeal will lie only before the High Court, under Section 378 (4) of Cr.PC. In such cases, the complainant has to seek for Special leave under Section 378 (5) of Cr.PC.Since the decision rendered in S. Ganapathy V. N. Senthilvel ((2016) 4 CTC 119) was per- incuriam, the consequence of this judgement which had resulted in orders being passed and which had become final / acted upon by the parties, could never be allowed to be re-opened.
T. Krishnamurthy Vs ITO (Madras High Court) This is a case where details of investment in shares and immovable property were not originally disclosed by the petitioner at the time of filing of the original returns under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. Therefore, two notices under section 148 […]
Liability of Purchase Tax under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Value-added Tax Act, 2006 was not attracted in case assessee’s turnover was also below Rs. 300 Crores during the year.
