B. Chandramathi Vs. N. Prakash (SC)- Appellant is about 51 years of age. She is a poor widow who is eking out a living for herself and her family by making jowar rotis and selling them. She is the only earning member of her family. She has two children to look after. It appears that the appellant is unwell. She is stated to have suffered from depression. As of today, the appellant has undergone the sentence for a period of about 2 months before she was released on bail.
ITO Vs. Berger Imp ex India (ITAT Delhi)- CIT (A) after considering all these submissions has observed that the assessee had started efforts and other activities for its trade though there is no purchase and sale during the initial period. The assessee had given employment to seven persons for marketing activities and has set up infrastructure for running the business at Chennai. The shop rent, electricity bill and telephone bills have been paid and on these facts it cannot be denied that the assessee had commenced the business. In the trade activity there is no preoperative period as the same is required in manufacturing activity and, thus, he has held that the assessee is entitled to have the benefit of carry forward of business loss and depreciation and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the loss claimed by the assessee.
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
ACIT Vs. M/s Sikka Papers Mills Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- In this case the identity of the share holders has not been established in order to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions, Assessing Officer issued commission u/s. 131(d) to the departmental officers in Lucknow and Agra as well as and asked for information 133(6) of the Act directly from the share applicants. The letters issued by registered post to the aforesaid share applicant companies u/s. 133(6) remained unserved while the departmental officers found that no such companies existed at the given address.
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.
PTC India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.9.2011 of CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09. However at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was placed before the Bench. The date of hearing was intimated to the assessee on the date appeal was filed. Signatures of the person filing the appeal in the Registry are available on record as such the appeal was passed over twice.
The Supreme Court has cancelled 122 licenses for mobile networks issued during A Raja’s tenure as Telecom Minister and has asked the telecom regulator TRAI to make fresh recommendations on allotment of the licenses through auction within four months. In a second crucial verdict, the court refused to order an investigation into the role of Home Minister P Chidambaram in the telecom scam, asking a CBI trial court to decide on this instead within two weeks.
In Re WaveField Inseis ASA (AAR) When this Authority took the view in Monte Harris and other cases that the date of the filing of the application before the Authority should be the crucial date for determining the question of the applicability of clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act and not the date when the application comes up for hearing either under section 245R(2) or under section 245R(4) of the Act,
It was contended by the appellants that they were not aware that they had to pay service tax. Though it was a fact that they have taken service tax registration, they never disclosed the nature of services rendered nor they furnished ST-3 returns, which was mandatory for a person providing taxable services. The question naturally arises that if they were not aware that they had to pay service tax, why should they take a service tax registration. We are of the opinion that non-furnishing of information or non-filing of returns resulted in non-payment of service tax and this action on the part of appellants tantamount to deliberate non-compliance with the provisions. In other words, this is only implying suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the extended period, under Section 73(1) is rightly invoked by the Revenue.
