Income Tax : One can set up either a public charitable trust, a registered society, or a Section 8 Company (a trust corporation). Each has it...
Company Law : Under Section 2(18) of the Income tax a company is said to be a company in which the public are substantially interested in the fo...
Income Tax : NGO’s or charity work in India can be carried out by various methods/forms of business, such as a Trust/ A society or by a Non-P...
Finance : Forming a, Trust or a Society, or a Company Generally speaking, any organisation that devotes its funds for public welfare is a no...
Company Law : Objectives of Company proposed to be formed under Section 8 of Companies Act 2013 should be to promote commerce, art, science, sp...
Company Law : Government is planning to relax exit norms for not-for-profit companies to allow them to de-register without having to follow cumb...
Company Law : The government today eased rules for incorporating not-for-profit companies, by giving the Registrar of companies the power to dir...
CA, CS, CMA : As you may be aware that the ICAI has taken a lead role in the development and promotion of XBRL in India and has accordingly set ...
Company Law : The government is planning to permit corporate houses to set up higher educational institutions -- like multi-disciplinary univers...
Corporate Law : The issue was whether the NCLT could declare ownership of a trademark during CIRP. The Supreme Court held that title disputes not ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that the assessing officer failed to consider binding CBIC circulars cl...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that the Successful Resolution Applicant [SRA] cannot be forced to deal with claims that are not a part of the ...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Hyderabad held that exemption notification no. 57/2000 issued u/s. 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 prevails over CBEC circular ...
Corporate Law : NCLT Chennai held that as per section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, the liability of guarantor is coextensive with that of the B...
Company Law : Proposed guidelines for conversion of section 25 company (non profit company) to an ordinary company under Companies Act, 1956. -...
CESTAT Delhi held that Wireless Access Point is classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8517 62 90 and accordingly is entitled to exemption from Basic Customs Duty under serial no. 13 of notification dated 01.03.2005 as amended by notification dated 11.07.2014.
Delhi High Court directed to decide afresh whether imported article i.e. gold coins are classifiable under CTH 7114 1910 or 7118 9000 bearing in mind the findings on the scope of those two entries.
CESTAT Kolkata held that when the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) is Nil Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS), being computed at the rate of 10% of BCD, will also be Nil
CESTAT Mumbai held that ‘interface card’ is classifiable under customs tariff it 8517 7010 and not under customs tariff item 8517 6290. Accordingly, demand of differential duty set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as differential duty was paid with interest on expiry of export obligation period, there is no violation of the conditions of Advance License under Notification no. 96/2009-Cus. dated 11.09.2009 and hence redemption fine and penalty set aside.
Bombay High Court held that taking recourse to the provisions of Section 166A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuance of the Letter of Rogatory by the Magistrate without following procedure prescribed under section 155(2) cannot be sustained and deserved to be quashed.
Supreme Court held that enhancing the price of imported goods by invoking rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules without any evidence is unjustified and bad-in-law.
Supreme Court held that a proviso cannot militate against the intention of the main provision in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of Kerala Value Added Tax Act and thus a proviso cannot extend the limitation period which is fixed under the main provision.
Kerala High Court held that under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) in a contract for the transfer of the right to use the goods, the taxable event is the execution of the contract for delivery of the goods, and if that has taken place, it was immaterial whether the transfer was exclusively or to the exclusion of all others.
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.
