Mohammad Ahmad & Anr. Versus Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors. One half of the lis between landlord and tenant would not reach courts, if tenant agrees to pay the present prevalent market rate of rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord. In that case landlord would also be satisfied that he is getting adequate, just and proper return on the property. But the trend in the litigation between landlord and tenant shows otherwise. Tenant is happy in paying the meagre amount of rent fixed years ago and landlord continues to find out various grounds under the Rent Acts, to evict him some how or the other. This case appears to be another classic example of the aforesaid scenario.
The Delhi high court has dismissed the writ petition of French company Champagne Moet & Chandon objecting to the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board dismissing its appeal against an order of the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks in a trade mark case. The company is a well-known manufacture of wines which it is selling under the trademark Moet, Moet & Chandon and other brands in more than 150 countries of the world, including India. It objected to a Delhi firm selling meat products adopting the name M/s Moets. CHAMPAGNE MOET AND CHANDON versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS (Delhi high Court- 19.05.2011)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Manjit Singh & Ors. on 18 May, 2011 – An insurance company would not be liable for payment of compensation in a motor vehicle accident if the driver had been transporting passengers on a learner’s licence, the Delhi High Court held in the case, New India Assurance Ltd vs Manjit singh. However, the company has to pay the decreed amount to the claimants first and then recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, the judgment said. In this case, a woman died when an auto rickshaw turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving. One of the issues raised was whether the insurance company would be absolved from the liability to pay. The company argued that the driver and owner had violated the terms of the insurance policy by allowing the vehicle to be driven by one without proper and valid licence. The high court ruled that transporting passengers on a learner’s licence, without being accompanied by a licensed driver, would be violation of the insurance policy and the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation amount.
Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi.(Delhi High Court) – The challenge by the petitioners is primarily to the fee prescribed for grant of permission. However, certain other terms and conditions imposed are also challenged. It is the contention of the petitioners that imposition of fee and any other condition for installation of towers is beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of MCD. The writ petitions were accompanied with applications for interim relief.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Dabur India Ltd. and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. AIR 1990 SC 1814, observed that Government, Central or State, cannot be permitted to play dirty games with the citizens of this country to coerce them in making payments which the citizens were not legally obliged to make.
Indian firms outsourcing routine work to their overseas subsidiaries would not have to deduct withholding tax on the payments made to them. In a landmark ruling, the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) ( A.A.R. No.883 of 2010 dated 16.05.2010 – Applicant R.R. Donnelley India Outsource Private Limited) held that firms are exempted from deducting the withholding tax on the payments made for services like transcription and data processing.
Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT – ITAT Bangalore held that payments made under a Technology Transfer Agreement ‘make available’ technical knowledge or experience, and hence, are taxable as Fees for Technical Services in terms of Article 12(4)(b) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. Also, payments made for services in the nature of marketing support and other administrative services do not ‘make available’ technology, and hence, cannot be held as FTS under Article 12 of DTAA between India and Singapore.
ITO vs. Radha Birju Patel (ITAT Mumbai) – Transactions carried out via Portfolio Management Scheme are clearly in the nature of transactions meant for maximization of wealth rather encashing the profits on appreciation in value of shares. The very nature of Portfolio Management Scheme is such that the investments made by the assessee are protected and enhanced and in such a circumstance, it cannot be said that Portfolio Management is scheme of trading in shares and stock. Whether, the assessee is engaged in the business of dealing in shares or investment in shares is essentially a question of fact and it has to be determined with regard to the entirety of the circumstances. Where the assessee is engaged in systematic activities of holding portfolio through a PMS Manager, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that the main object of holding the portfolio is to make profit by sale of shares during the course of maintaining the portfolio investment over the period. The high number of transactions shown in the statement is misleading because these are computer-split transactions and not independent transactions.
The assessee who was not the shareholders of M/s. Jackson Generators (P) Ltd. (JGPL) could be treated as covered by the definition of ‘dividend’ as contained in Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘). This issue has arisen under the following circumstances.
CIT Vs Quark Systems India (P) Ltd. (Punjab and Haryana High Court)- The Tribunal, while entertaining the additional ground raised by the assessee for the exclusion of a comparable, remanded the matter to the AO allowing an opportunity to the assessee to produce material before the AO for determination of the ALP, and after the remand and consideration of the material produced by the assessee in terms of the order of the Tribunal, an order in favour of the assessee has been passed.
