Case Law: Shri Umeya Corporation vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
S. 80-IB(10): To be the "developer" of a housing project, the assessee has to undertake the entrepreneurship risk in execution of the project. He need not be the owner of the land. S. 40(a)(ia): The amendment is clarificatory and retrospective w.e.f. 01.04.2005
In order to answer the question as to whether the condition precedent for deduction under section 80IB has been satisfied inasmuch as whether or not the assessee is engaged in "developing and building housing projects", all that is material is whether assessee is taking the entrepreneurship risk in execution of such project. When profits or losses, as a result of execution of project as such, belong predominantly to the assessee, the assessee is obviously taking the entrepreneurship risk qua the project and is, accordingly, eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of the same. The assumption of such an entrepreneurship risk is not dependent on ownership of the land
PFA
Case Law: Maya Gupta vs. CIT (ITAT Delhi)
S. 263: In a case where there is inadequate inquiry but not lack of inquiry, the CIT must conduct inquiry and verification and record the finding how the assessment order is erroneous. He cannot simply remand the matter to the AO for verification
In cases where there is inadequate inquiry but not lack of inquiry, the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if inquiry and verification is conducted by the CIT and he is able to establish and show the error and mistake made by the AO, making the order unsustainable in law
India should curb red-tape, lift FDI-limits: Joe Biden; DIPP awarded for 'Make in India' initiative
India should curb red-tape, lift FDI-limits: Joe Biden; DIPP awarded for 'Make in India' initiative
HC : Pending trademark registration, Vistara Voyages' infringement suit against Tata-SIA not maintainable
MCA relaxes additional fees payable on annual filing forms, e-forms being developed
MCA relaxes additional fees payable on annual filing forms, e-forms being developed
Confirms CCI order; Film Association's illegal ban order within Competition Act purview
COMPAT dismisses appeal, upholds CCI's order wherein the act of Film Distributors Association (Kerala) ('Appellant') of imposing ban on producer, distributor and exhibitor of films (P.V. Basheer Ahamed, Respondent No. 2) on exhibiting Malayalam films was held as illegal and anti-competitive; Rejects producer\'s contention that since he was member of Appellant-association, having constitutional right to form association, thus, CCI order was violative of his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, as member suspension was inherent right of association, which cannot be part of investigation under Competition Act; COMPAT refers to its order in Advertising Agencies Guild Vs Indian Broadcasting Foundation & its members, wherein it was held that "when trade associations transgress their legal contours and facilitate collusive decision-making with intention of controlling production, distribution, sale / price of / trade in goods / providing services, same will amount to violation of Competition Act"; Holds that the appellant failed to point out any provision in its constitution / bye laws under which a ban could be imposed on the screening of certain types of films, states that Director General & CCI recorded detailed reasons for arriving at a concurrent finding that the ban imposed was anti-competitive:COMPAT
Order was passed by Shri. Justice G.S. Singhvi (Chairman)
Advocates Santosh Paul and Arvind Gupta represented the Appellant.
Stays injunction granted to Johnson & Johnson against Lupin, absent Johnson's product-market in India
Division Bench of Delhi HC stays Single Judge order that granted injunction to Johnson & Johnson (respondent) against Lupin Ltd (appellant) for use of 'LUCYNTA', similar to Johnson\'s 'NUCYNTA' for pharma preparations; Accepts Lupin's contention that Johnson & Johnson's product is not in market in India and it has not even sought approval from the statutory authority for marketing its product in India; Observes that Lupin manufactures its product in India, while Johnson & Johnson manufactures and markets its product outside India; Thus, holds that, "our prima facie view is that the impugned judgment ought to be stayed till we hear the matter finally...Renotify on 16.09.2015.":Delhi HC
The order was given by Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Senior Advocate A.N.S.Nadkarni alongwith Advocates Varun Singh, Anshuman Srivastava, Nikita Nadkarni, Anuj Ssma and Niharika Kaim argued on behalf of the appellants. Advocate Sanjeev Sindhwani represented the respondent.
LSI Note:
Single Judge while granting injunction, rejected Lupin's contention that as Johnson & Johnson did not use the mark 'NUCYNTA' in India, it had no goodwill in India and thus, no case of passing off could be established. Single Judge relying on Google search held that Johnson & Johnson enjoyed unique goodwill and reputation in India and held that, "the courts entertaining the case of passing off can discount the localized existence of goodwill and the business in the territory specific if the substantial nature of reputation has been proved..." [LSI-362-HC-2015-(DEL)]
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment