Access significant and up-to-date high court judgments for legal insights and precedent. Stay informed about the latest legal decisions and their impact on various areas of law.
Corporate Law : Bombay HC criticizes Pune Police for copying FIR from private complaint, highlighting legal implications and citizen harassment is...
Corporate Law : Allahabad HC asserts that Section 498A IPC is often misused against entire families to exert pressure. Employment prospects should...
Corporate Law : The Orissa High Court ruled that voter ID alone is not reliable for determining age in insurance claims, directing LIC to reassess...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court recent judgment highlights the alarming misuse of the POCSO Act, where cases are filed due to family objections t...
Corporate Law : J&K&L High Court quashes money laundering case against Farooq Abdullah, citing absence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Goods and Services Tax : HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA: Ramesh Kumar Patodia v. Citi Bank [WPO NO. 547 OF 2019 JUNE 24, 2022 ] Facts: ♦ Petitioner is a holder ...
Goods and Services Tax : CGST, Gurugram (Anti Evasion) Vs Gaurav Dhir (Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Courts, Gurugram) U/s 132(1)) r/w 132(1)(b)(C)(e...
Corporate Law : In order to dispense with the physical signatures on the daily orders (which are not important/final orders and judgments) of the ...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court admits petition questioning Validity of provisions in Finance Act 2022 which overruled landmark Judgment of Supr...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC remands Somnath Commosales Pvt Ltd case to AO for fresh assessment. The final opportunity is granted; non-cooperation ...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court ruled Section 130 of GST Act can't be applied for excess stock found during search; Section 73/74 should be u...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC dismisses appeal by revenue, upholds ITAT decision quashing PCIT order under Section 263 on MAT credit and doubtful de...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court affirms ITAT's decision to delete income tax addition under Section 69 due to lack of direct evidence against ...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad HC rules that GST authorities can survey business premises for verifying transactions when goods are intercepted without...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court mandates new video conferencing protocols to enhance transparency and accessibility in court proceedings. Rea...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department Issues Instructions for Assessing Officers after Adverse Observations of Hon. Allahabad High Court in in Civ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court has exempted the Lawyers from wearing Gowns practicing in the High Court with effect from March 2, 2022 till furt...
Corporate Law : Till further orders, all documents/ not summons/Daks through physical mode be dispensed with, except where there, is a specific or...
Income Tax : Hon’ble Judges to hear the matters physically at the Principal Seat at Bombay, on experimental basis with effect from 1st Decemb...
In the present case, there is no indication of the assessee’s hire purchase agreements reflecting bifurcation of the EMIs into principal and interest components. In the absence thereof, the common and accepted usage of the indexing system of accounting in the hire-purchase trade must be held to be valid as otherwise the rate of interest under the mercantile system in so far as the later EMIs are concerned would be far higher and contrary to the rate prescribed in the assessee’s agreements. Further, as the assessee had itself employed this system of accounting in its books of account, applying the law laid down in Sanjeev Woollen Mills (supra), the Department was bound to accept the same for the assessment proceedings.
CIT VS. Mohan Meakin Ltd. (Delhi HC) – In the case of the uncashed cheques amount to Rs.1,97,758/-, the finding of the Tribunal is that that there was no claim for deduction in any of the earlier years and, therefore, the amount cannot be added under Section 41(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute, as it cannot be, that the amount of uncashed cheques was not allowed as deduction in any of the earlier assessment years. As per the assessee this represents the cheques received and remaining on hand on the last day of the accounting period. Tribunal has accepted this stand. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have not stated why the stand of the assessee was not acceptable. Revenue has also not stated and averred that the assessment order now passed, this aspect was not considered and examined. In these circumstances, Section 41(1) can hardly have any application. We accordingly, uphold the decision of the Tribunal deleting the addition.
CIT Vs. Mother Dairy India Ltd. (Delhi HC) – It is a well-settled proposition that if the property in the goods is transferred and gets vested in the concessionaire at the time of the delivery then he is thereafter liable for the same and would be dealing with them in his own right as a principal and not as an agent of the Dairy. The clauses of the agreements show that there is an actual sale, and not mere delivery of the milk and the other products to the concessionaire.
CIT v. Synopsys International Old Ltd(Karnataka High Court) – Payment for shrink wrapped software/off-the shelf software amounts to ‘royalty’ within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as under Article 12 of the India-Ireland tax treaty.
Atlas Copco AB of Sweden v. CIT (Bombay High Court) – It was held that Amount received by the taxpayer was on account of right to use the know-how for a specified period and there was no outright transfer of know-how. Therefore, amount received was royalty and taxable in India.
Karnataka Government Insurance Department V. ACCE (Karnatka HC)- Activities performed by sovereign/public authorities under the provision of law, which are in the nature of statutory obligations which are to be fulfilled in accordance with law are exempt from levy of service tax. The fee collected by them for performing such activities is in the nature of compulsory levy as per the provisions of the relevant statute and it is deposited into the Government treasury. Such activity is purely in public interest and it is undertaken as mandatory and statutory function. It is in those cases, service tax is not leviable. Insurance business is not a sovereign act. No fee is collected for performing such statutory functions.
CCE Vs. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. (Karnataka HC)- Merely because the Insurance Company paid the assessee the value of goods including the excise duty paid, that would not render the availment of the cenvat credit wrong or irregular. At the same time, it does not confer any right on the Excise Department to demand reversal of credit or default to pay the said amount.
CIT Vs. Nova Nordisk Pharma India Ltd. (HC of Karnataka)- We find that this is not simply a situation of a product manufactured to the specifications of the assessee, being sold to the assessee at the price fixed by the supplier but this is a situation where a product manufactured out of raw materials supplied by a foreign company who had direct interest in the assessee company so manufactured to the specification of the assessee company utilising the technical know-how supplied by it and also labelling the product with the brand name of the assessee and supplying the entire product only to the assessee company
CIT Vs. Software Consultants (Delhi High Court)- For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
In the 1st week of October, 2009, the petitioner came to know that the respondents have infringed its trademark by using the word ‘Arnimax’ on its products coupled with the trade dress and thereby has infringed the registered trademark and passed off its products as that of the petitioner. Accordingly, C.S. 360 of 2009 was filed and an interim order passed on 19th February, 2010 restraining the respondent from dealing with, offering for sale, advertising, marketing or publicising the impugned trademark ‘Arnimax’. Such order was continued on 8th April, 2010 and direction given for filing affidavits. An affidavit has been filed and a No Objection Certificate dated 9th December, 2002 has been relied upon by the respondent. Such No Objection Certificate was given by one Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. No certificate of the petitioner has been produced. In fact on a comparison of the signature of the person who is the signatory to the certificate with the signature in the Indenture of Lease dated 25th March, 1988 the said signature will not tally. The licence given to Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. by the owners of the registered trademark did not include the registered trademark ‘Arnimax’. Therefore, neither Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. nor anyone deriving a right thereunder could have issued the No Objection Certificate. No document evidencing sale, registration or user has been produced by the respondent therefore the case of infringement made out subsists and the order dated 19th February, 2010 and subsequent orders passed be confirmed.
