Income Tax : Dive into the Principle of Mutuality, exploring its meaning, tax implications, and impact on cooperative societies. Discover case ...
Fema / RBI : It is felt that enormous powers are conferred on Banks or Public Financial Institutions under SARFAESI Act, 2002 from the stage of...
Finance : I strongly believe that implementing the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 making a good balance between the object and the int...
Goods and Services Tax : Levy of sales tax on a higher percentage on ‘superior kerosene oil' (SKO) (also called white kerosene oil) and also levy of resa...
Income Tax : For the sake of convenience, the attached tables summarises the valuation rules for all perquisites prescribed in the new rule 3 e...
Income Tax : A dozen private nursing homes and hospitals today lost their approval granted under Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act on the bas...
Corporate Law : Bail was granted in a spurious cancer drug case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as there was no clear link between...
Income Tax : Madras High Court held that capital profit on the sale of the Fixed Assets of the Company cannot be taken directly to the Reserves...
Corporate Law : Paragraph 27AA of the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme could not be automatically imposed on establishments exempted under S...
Fema / RBI : The Tribunal held that once allegations of money laundering are established, the burden shifts to the accused. Failure to prove le...
Income Tax : The case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid bus...
Income Tax : Circular No. 2/2010-Income Tax The Finance Act, 2005 introduced a levy namely Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on the value of certain fr...
Income Tax : Notification No. 94/2009 - Income Tax For the purpose of computing the income chargeable under the head Salaries, the value of pe...
CESTAT Mumbai held that section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 may be invoked only upon material particulars being misdeclared and this detriment is in addition to duty liability determined under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962.
Explore the case of Saraswati Knitwear Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chandigarh) regarding interest on excess duty paid for clearing yarn. Discover the CESTAT’s decision.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rendering a decision on goods that are yet to be provisionally assessed would be a premature intervention. The possible detriment that may arise on a future date is not a grievance that should be entertained unless and until it does translate as one upon occurrence of import or export of goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that service provided by technical, inspection and certification agency in relation to inspection and certification of export goods is liable to service tax under ‘Technical, Inspection and Certification Service’.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in case of production of a new retail sale price, duty is to be calculated on pro-rata basis, in the present case only four days, when the production has taken place.
Calcutta High Court held that the land once vested with State cannot be derequisitioned nor any further acquisition proceedings lie under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court while considering the application under Trademarks Act have observed that it is well settled that a composite trademark is not to be dissected to determine whether there is any deceptive similarity with the impugned trademark and comparison has to be by taking the rival marks as a whole.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in Madhu Silica Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Ahmedabad that proper inquiry is required for classifying Malvern Master Sizer under Customs Tariff.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court have given observations on the issue of unstamped arbitration agreement. It has been held that an arbitration agreement, which is unstamped, does not exist and an unstamped contract, containing an arbitration agreement, would not exist as it has no existence in law and it has been observed that such agreement would be impounded under Section 33 of the Stamp Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that for refusal of Registration under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, it would have to be shown that the marks themselves are confusingly similar to each other, and that, owing to the similarity in the marks and the goods and services which they cover, there is a likelihood of confusion among the public, or a likelihood of the public believing the existence of an association between the marks.
