In case of goods sold from exclusive single brand retail outlets or restaurants or stores, the fact that a good is sold from such a store ought to be a relevant fact in construing if the good is its branded good or not. In the case of such goods, perhaps a rebuttable presumption arises in favour of such goods being branded goods of the specified store.
In the instant case, after the search was conducted on 23rd February 2006, it was found that for the assessment year 1995-96, the respondent-assessee had not filed its return of income by the due date. It is only when block assessment proceedings were initiated by the assessing officer, that the assessee filed its return for the said assessment year on 11th July, 1996 under Section 158BC of the Act, showing its total income as Rs.7,02,768/-.
In the present case, the interest accrues on the surplus deposited by the club like in the case of any other deposit made by an account holder with the bank. For a receipt to be exempt on the principles of Mutuality, three conditions have to be satisfied.
Moto Vehicle Act mandates that during the period of lease, the vehicle be registered, in the certificate of registration, in the name of the lessee and, on conclusion of the lease period, the vehicle be registered in the name of lessor as owner.
However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a Court in his private interest and for redressal of the personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice.
Where the AAC set aside the reassessment on the only ground that the assessee was not afforded opportunity to put forward his case, but did not hold that the notice issued under section 148 was invalid, there would be no need for the ITO to issue a fresh notice to the assessee.
Notice gives jurisdiction to ITO – Issuance of notice within period of limitation gives jurisdiction to Assessing Officer to proceed to make reassessment.
Section 12B was introduced in the MRTP Act by Act 30 of the 1984 as an independent remedy for a claimant in addition to a suit that he may file to claim any loss or damage that he may suffer by reason of any monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice as would be clear from sub-section (4) of section 12B. There is no reference at all in section 12B of the MRTP Act to the provisions of either section 10
In one view of the matter there was, in the circumstances of this case, an implied agreement under which the cheques were accepted unconditionally as payment and on another view, even if the cheques were taken conditionally, the cheques not having been dishonoured but having been cashed, the payment related back to the dates of the receipt of the cheques and in law the dates of payments were the dates of the delivery of the cheques.
The short question that falls for determination in these appeals by special leave is whether the appellant-company was, in the facts and circumstances of the case, offering any ‘service’ to the respondents within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 so as to make it amenable to the jurisdiction of the fora established under the said Act.
