The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that the payment for provision of transponder capacity is in the nature of Royalty?
The issue under consideration is that the petitioner filed writ petition for seeking grant of anticipatory bail, whether HC allow him the grant or not?
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 the amount paid to the employees under the non-compete agreement is covered by the expression ‘salary/profits in lieu of salary’ or not? and If not then whether the TDS will be applicable or not?
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceeding initiated after 4.5 years from date of original assessment order is justified in lawand also when order was silent about the levy of penalty under section 271B?
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?
ITAT states that, disclosure of manner in which undisclosed income was earned and substantiating the manner in which undisclosed income was earned are two different things. Hence, there is no clarity in the stand of the Revenue for initiation of penalty under Section 271AAA,
Merely because assessee has inserted some figures, which are not in coherence with the other figures in the income tax return, there is a mistake apparent from the record, which needs to be rectified. Thus, the lower authorities are not justified in rejecting the application under section 154 of the act of the assessee. Hence, ITAT allow the appeal of the assessee.
The issue under consideration is relating to the writ petition filed for seeking refund of pre-deposit of Service Tax alongwith interest. Question is whether petitioner will get the refund or not?
