Applicant is an entity incorporated for undertaking wholesale operations in India. The applicant will enter into vendor procurement contracts to purchase products from the manufacturers hold inventory on its own account and sell the same to retailers industrial users or other wholesalers.
Honorable ble Supreme court held that Visveswaraiah Technological University being not wholly or substantially financed by government is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(23)(iiiab). Further, the fees collected by the University as per prescribed govt. norms cannot be said to finance provided by govt. Therefore, assistance by govt. by way of loans, grants and subsidies only to be considered as financing from it.
A division bench of Delhi High Court held that the demand of the institute i.e., ICSI, asking students for a fee of INR 500 per subject/answer book for obtaining certified copies is not sustainable.
The appellants herein namely Sunil @ Balikaran Sahu and Amit Gupta were awarded death sentence by the trial Court after having found them guilty for offences punishable under Sections 460 (three counts), 324 (three counts), 307 (three counts), 506 Part-II (ten counts), 397 (nine counts) and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’). They were sentenced to death by hanging under sub-section (5) of Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’). Conviction and sentences imposed upon both the appellants are as follows: –
Delhi HC in the above cited case held that an employee cannot be restrained from competing with its former employer provided he/she is not using the confidential information of employer.
The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, which has directed the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fees on the prayer made by him for declaring the sale deed dated 26-3-2012 executed by the respondents No. 1 to 5 in favour of the respondent No.6 as null & void and not benefiting the respondent No. 6.
Kerala High Court has held that Cross Objection filed before the Tribunal u/s 253(4) is an independent appeal and shall be adjudicated on merits even if the other party’s appeal is dismissed, for whatever reason.
HC held that since before 01.06.2015 section 234E providing for late fee for delay filling of TDS returns was not linked to / not referred under Sec 200A processing of TDS returns. As a result of this the late fee charge was invalid and illegal.
When the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015.
Delhi High Court has held that the situs of an intangible asset is the situs of the owner of that asset and therefore the transfer of such asset by a nonresident would not be taxable in India even if the asset was being commercially used in India.
