Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
| From: Dipak Shah djshah1944@yahoo.com [aaykarbhavan] Sent: Saturday 26 September 2015 5:24 PM To: company_secretary@yahoogroups.com; thanecas@yahoogroups.com; saremal_company@yahoo.co.in; 105smtpnirc@yahoogroups.com; company_secretary@googlegroups.com; aaykarbhavan@yahoogroups.com; csfratenity@yahoogroups.co.in; djain128@gmail.com; pdrungta@gmail.com; bhilai-ca@yahoogroups.com; aaykarbhavan@googlegroups.com; singlapavan@gmail.com; jvkarani@hotmail.com; icai_circ_meerut_ca@yahoogroups.com; sensitiveadvisor2008@yahoogroups.co.in; solapurcas@yahoogroups.com; ariyurkrish@gmail.com; caforumhyd@yahoogroups.com; SolapurCAs@yahoogroups.com; ranchi_chartered_accountants@yahoogroups.com; charteredsecretaries@yahoogroups.co.in; cacscwaindia@yahoogroups.co.in; lucknow-ca@yahoogroups.com; camnkakkad@gmail.com; CA Maulik Shah; Chartered Secretaries; Cacscw India Group; CA; rbshethji@gmail.com; Rameshbhai Kadiwar; C. A. Bhupendra Shah Mumbai; New Delhi CA Forum; Chartered Accountant; GOOGLE GROUP; Csmysore; Jignesh Vasavada; jvkarani@hotmail.com Reply To: aaykarbhavan@yahoogroups.com Subject: [aaykarbhavan] Judgments and Information, C L I I T R [1 Attachment] |
INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR)--PRINT AND ONLINE EDITION
Refund --Interest on refund--Only as provided for under statute and no other interest on such statutory interest--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 244A-- CIT v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals Ltd. . . . 186
Depreciation --Meaning of "asset"--Scope of expanded definition--Determination on facts whether asset constituted "other business or commercial rights of similar nature"--Acquisition of rights of exclusive networking--Consideration entitled to depreciation--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 32-- CIT v. Bharti Teletech Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 212
Income from undisclosed sources --Amounts deposited in bank not disclosed--Finding by Tribunal that there had been regular transactions--Peak credit taken into consideration in determining taxable amount--Order justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 69A-- Sanjay Kumar Bucha v. ITO (Guj) . . . 198
----Unexplained deposits in bank--Admission that amounts had not been offered for tax--Addition of amount to income of assessee--Justified--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Kody Elcot Ltd. v. Joint CIT (Mad) . . . 192
Industrial undertaking --Special deduction under section 80-I --Condition precedent--Assessee need not be owner of industrial undertaking--Manufacturing activity in industrial undertaking taken on hire--Assessee entitled to special deduction--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-I-- Vijay Udhyog v. CIT (Bom) . . . 206
Loss --Amount assessed as unexplained investment under section 69A--No evidence of loss--No claim before Assessing Officer--Loss not deductible--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Sanjay Kumar Bucha v. ITO (Guj) . . . 198
Deduction of tax at source --Rent--Definition--Landing and parking charges paid by airlines to Airports Authority of India for facilities at airports--Not payment for simple "use of land" but for services and facilities in connection with aircraft operation at airport in accordance with international protocols--Use of land merely incidental--Payment not rent--Rate of deduction of tax at source applicable to payment of rent not attracted--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 194C, 194-I-- Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. v. CIT . . . 372
Assessment --Notice--Limitation--Notice under section 143(2) served upon assessee beyond period of one year barred by limitation--Assessment under section 143(3) void ab initio--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 143-- CIT v. Gujarat Foils Ltd. (Guj) . . . 324
Business --Business income--Remission of liability--Amounts shown for several years as due to sundry creditors--Amounts not written off during relevant previous years--Genuineness of credits not doubted--Amount not assessable under section 41--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 41(1)-- Principal CIT v. Matruprasad C. Pandey (Guj) . . . 363
Business expenditure --Disallowance--Excessive and unreasonable payments--Commission paid to interested party--Finding that commission was excessive--Disallowance of part of commission--Justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 40A(2)(b)-- CIT v. Gujarat Foils Ltd. (Guj) . . . 324
Capital gains --Computation--Cost of acquisition or fair market value on particular date--Meaning of "fair market value"--Determination of fair market value--Report of registered valuer submitted by assessee--Assessing Officer not considering report and determining fair market value on the basis of comparable cases--Not justified--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 48-- N. Govindaraju v. ITO (Karn) . . . 243
----Computation--Deductions--Expenditure in connection with transfer of property--Brokerage--Evidence in support of payments--Disallowance of half of amount without proper reasons--Not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961-- N. Govindaraju v. ITO (Karn) . . . 243
Co-operative society --Special deduction--Not available to co-operative bank other than primary agricultural credit society or primary agricultural and rural development bank--Meaning of co-operative bank--Assessee registered under Co-operative Societies Act--Credit transactions with non-members insignificant--Bye-laws of society not prohibiting other co-operative societies from being its members--Assessee not a co-operative bank--Entitled to special deduction in respect of income from providing credit facilities to its members--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80P-- Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Bom) . . . 272
Income from undisclosed sources --Additions on ground of excess generation of scrap--Accounts of assessee not rejected--Evidence in favour of assessee by Excise Department--Additions not justified--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Gujarat Foils Ltd. (Guj) . . . 324
Industrial undertaking --Special deduction--Initial assessment year--Determination--Assessee starting its hotel business in previous year relevant to assessment year 1999-2000--Initial assessment year 1999-2000--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IA-- Escapade Resorts P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Ker) . . . 322
Interest on borrowed capital --Disallowance--Finding that assessee had interest-free funds to lend--Deletion of disallowance--Justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 36(1)(iii)-- CIT v. Gujarat Foils Ltd. (Guj) . . . 324
Interest-tax --Charge of tax--Difference between finance agreement and hire purchase agreement--Effect of agreement to be taken into account in deciding nature of agreement--Bank entering into agreement whereby equipment was purchased by it as per requirement of lessee and lessee responsible for repairs--Fact that bank was owner of equipment not conclusive--Agreement was a finance agreement--Bank liable to pay interest-tax on interest component of amount paid by lessee--Interest-tax Act, 1974, s. 2(7)-- CIT v. Axis Bank Ltd. (Guj) . . . 293
Interpretation of taxing statutes -- Explanation --Difference between Explanation , proviso and rule-- N. Govindaraju v. ITO (Karn) . . . 243
Penalty --Concealment of income--Amount added as unexplained investment--Addition deleted--Penalty could not be imposed--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- Principal CIT v. J. Upendra Construction P. Ltd. (Guj) . . . 383
----Concealment of income--Penalty on ground that there was excess generation of scrap--Finding that there was no such excess--Penalty could not be levied--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- CIT v. Gujarat Foils Ltd. (Guj) . . . 324
Reassessment --Notice--Royalty--Payment of royalty not only disclosed but considered at every stage by Transfer Pricing Officer and by Assessing Officer--Reassessment on ground payment of royalty is capital expenditure--Change of opinion--Not permissible--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (P&H) . . . 266
----Notice--Validity--Notice after four years--Sanction of Commissioner or Chief Commissioner--Condition mandatory--Failure to obtain sanction of Commissioner or Chief Commissioner--Not a defect curable under section 292B--Notice not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 151-- Dhadda Exports v. ITO (Raj) . . . 347
----Notice within four years--Reassessment on ground interest had escaped assessment because interest-free loan given out of interest-bearing funds to partners who were also partners of sister concern--No inquiry or application of mind by Assessing Officer in original assessment--Assumption of jurisdiction by Assessing Officer to reopen assessment justified--Not a case of mere change of opinion--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Jivraj Tea Co. v. Asst. CIT (Guj) . . . 337
----Notice within four years--Specific questions by Assessing Officer regarding payments to non-residents and reasons for failure to deduct tax with supporting evidence--Assessee furnishing necessary documents with supporting reasons for failure--Assessing Officer completing assessment thereafter without making any disallowance on ground of failure to deduct tax at source--Reassessment to disallow payments for failure to deduct tax at source in view of amended provision--Change of opinion--Amended provision available when original assessment completed--Not a ground for issuing notice for reassessment--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Sai Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Guj) . . . 354
----Scope of--Law applicable--Effect of insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 w.e.f. 1-4-1989--Valid notice of reassessment--Other incomes not mentioned in notice can be assessed--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- N. Govindaraju v. ITO (Karn) . . . 243
Recovery of tax --Interest--Finding that assessee was not in default--Interest could not be levied--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 220-- Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 281
----Stay of recovery--Appeal against assessment pending before Commissioner (Appeals)--Stay granted to the extent of fifty per cent.--Further stay of balance amount--Commissioner (Appeals) commenced hearing--Direction to dispose of appeal as expeditiously as possible--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 220(6)-- Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 262
Refund --Adjustment of refund against any sum payable--Meaning of any sum payable--Power of adjustment discretionary--Prior intimation of adjustment mandatory--Finding that no sums were payable--Adjustment not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 245-- Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 281
----Advance tax--Application for refund--Delay in filing claim--Condonation of delay--Whether genuine hardship to assessee to be examined--Order rejecting application on merits --Not proper exercise of power--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 119(2)(b), 239-- Deputy CIT v. Vasco Sales and Marketing Corporation (Ker) . . . 318
----Interest--Interest on compensation--All relevant factors to be considered--Assessee entitled to interest provided under statute but not to interest on such statutory interest--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 214(2), 243(1)(b), 244(1)-- Gujarat Flourochemicals Ltd. v. CIT (Guj) . . . 307
Unexplained investment --Construction of property--Cost of construction shown by assessee--Addition based solely on report of District Valuation Officer--Not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Principal CIT v. J. Upendra Construction P. Ltd. (Guj) . . . 383
S. 36(1)(iii) --Interest on borrowed capital--Disallowance--Finding that assessee had interest-free funds to lend--Deletion of disallowance--Justified-- CIT v. Gujarat Foils Ltd. (Guj) . . . 324
S. 40A(2)(b) --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Excessive and unreasonable payments--Commission paid to interested party--Finding that commission was excessive--Disallowance of part of commission--Justified-- CIT v. Gujarat Foils Ltd. (Guj) . . . 324
S. 41(1) --Business--Business income--Remission of liability--Amounts shown for several years as due to sundry creditors--Amounts not written off during relevant previous years--Genuineness of credits not doubted--Amount not assessable under section 41-- Principal CIT v. Matruprasad C. Pandey (Guj) . . . 363
S. 48 --Capital gains--Computation--Cost of acquisition or fair market value on particular date--Meaning of "fair market value"--Determination of fair market value--Report of registered valuer submitted by assessee--Assessing Officer not considering report and determining fair market value on the basis of comparable cases--Not justified--Matter remanded-- N. Govindaraju v. ITO (Karn) . . . 243
S. 80-IA --Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Initial assessment year--Determination--Assessee starting its hotel business in previous year relevant to assessment year 1999-2000--Initial assessment year 1999-2000-- Escapade Resorts P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Ker) . . . 322
S. 80P --Co-operative society--Special deduction--Not available to co-operative bank other than primary agricultural credit society or primary agricultural and rural development bank--Meaning of co-operative bank--Assessee registered under Co-operative Societies Act--Credit transactions with non-members insignificant--Bye-laws of society not prohibiting other co-operative societies from being its members--Assessee not a co-operative bank--Entitled to special deduction in respect of income from providing credit facilities to its members-- Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Bom) . . . 272
S. 119(2)(b) --Refund--Advance tax--Application for refund--Delay in filing claim--Condonation of delay--Whether genuine hardship to assessee to be examined--Order rejecting application on merits --Not proper exercise of power--Matter remanded-- Deputy CIT v. Vasco Sales and Marketing Corporation (Ker) . . . 318
S. 143 --Assessment--Notice--Limitation--Notice under section 143(2) served upon assessee beyond period of one year barred by limitation--Assessment under section 143(3) void ab initio-- CIT v. Gujarat Foils Ltd. (Guj) . . . 324
S. 147 --Reassessment--Notice--Royalty--Payment of royalty not only disclosed but considered at every stage by Transfer Pricing Officer and by Assessing Officer--Reassessment on ground payment of royalty is capital expenditure--Change of opinion--Not permissible-- Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (P&H) . . . 266
----Reassessment--Notice within four years--Reassessment on ground interest had escaped assessment because interest-free loan given out of interest-bearing funds to partners who were also partners of sister concern--No inquiry or application of mind by Assessing Officer in original assessment--Assumption of jurisdiction by Assessing Officer to reopen assessment justified--Not a case of mere change of opinion-- Jivraj Tea Co. v. Asst. CIT (Guj) . . . 337
----Reassessment--Notice within four years--Specific questions by Assessing Officer regarding payments to non-residents and reasons for failure to deduct tax with supporting evidence--Assessee furnishing necessary documents with supporting reasons for failure--Assessing Officer completing assessment thereafter without making any disallowance on ground of failure to deduct tax at source--Reassessment to disallow payments for failure to deduct tax at source in view of amended provision--Change of opinion--Amended provision available when original assessment completed--Not a ground for issuing notice for reassessment-- Sai Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Guj) . . . 354
----Reassessment--Scope of--Law applicable--Effect of insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 w.e.f. 1-4-1989--Valid notice of reassessment--Other incomes not mentioned in notice can be assessed-- N. Govindaraju v. ITO (Karn) . . . 243
S. 148 --Reassessment--Notice--Royalty--Payment of royalty not only disclosed but considered at every stage by Transfer Pricing Officer and by Assessing Officer--Reassessment on ground payment of royalty is capital expenditure--Change of opinion--Not permissible-- Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (P&H) . . . 266
----Reassessment--Notice within four years--Reassessment on ground interest had escaped assessment because interest-free loan given out of interest-bearing funds to partners who were also partners of sister concern--No inquiry or application of mind by Assessing Officer in original assessment--Assumption of jurisdiction by Assessing Officer to reopen assessment justified--Not a case of mere change of opinion-- Jivraj Tea Co. v. Asst. CIT (Guj) . . . 337
----Reassessment--Notice within four years--Specific questions by Assessing Officer regarding payments to non-residents and reasons for failure to deduct tax with supporting evidence--Assessee furnishing necessary documents with supporting reasons for failure--Assessing Officer completing assessment thereafter without making any disallowance on ground of failure to deduct tax at source--Reassessment to disallow payments for failure to deduct tax at source in view of amended provision--Change of opinion--Amended provision available when original assessment completed--Not a ground for issuing notice for reassessment-- Sai Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Guj) . . . 354
----Reassessment--Scope of--Law applicable--Effect of insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 w.e.f. 1-4-1989--Valid notice of reassessment--Other incomes not mentioned in notice can be assessed-- N. Govindaraju v. ITO (Karn) . . . 243
S. 151 --Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Notice after four years--Sanction of Commissioner or Chief Commissioner--Condition mandatory--Failure to obtain sanction of Commissioner or Chief Commissioner--Not a defect curable under section 292B--Notice not valid-- Dhadda Exports v. ITO (Raj) . . . 347
S. 194C --Deduction of tax at source--Rent--Definition--Landing and parking charges paid by airlines to Airports Authority of India for facilities at airports--Not payment for simple "use of land" but for services and facilities in connection with aircraft operation at airport in accordance with international protocols--Use of land merely incidental--Payment not rent--Rate of deduction of tax at source applicable to payment of rent not attracted-- Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) . . . 372
S. 194-I --Deduction of tax at source--Rent--Definition--Landing and parking charges paid by airlines to Airports Authority of India for facilities at airports--Not payment for simple "use of land" but for services and facilities in connection with aircraft operation at airport in accordance with international protocols--Use of land merely incidental--Payment not rent--Rate of deduction of tax at source applicable to payment of rent not attracted-- Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) . . . 372
S. 214(2) --Refund--Interest--Interest on compensation--All relevant factors to be considered --Assessee entitled to interest provided under statute but not to interest on such statutory interest-- Gujarat Flourochemicals Ltd. v. CIT (Guj) . . . 307
S. 220 --Recovery of tax--Interest--Finding that assessee was not in default--Interest could not be levied-- Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 281
S. 220(6) --Recovery of tax--Stay of recovery--Appeal against assessment pending before Commissioner (Appeals)--Stay granted to the extent of fifty per cent.--Further stay of balance amount--Commissioner (Appeals) commenced hearing--Direction to dispose of appeal as expeditiously as possible-- Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 262
S. 239 --Refund--Advance tax--Application for refund--Delay in filing claim--Condonation of delay--Whether genuine hardship to assessee to be examined--Order rejecting application on merits --Not proper exercise of power--Matter remanded-- Deputy CIT v. Vasco Sales and Marketing Corporation (Ker) . . . 318
S. 243(1)(b) --Refund--Interest--Interest on compensation--All relevant factors to be considered--Assessee entitled to interest provided under statute but not to interest on such statutory interest-- Gujarat Flourochemicals Ltd. v. CIT (Guj) . . . 307
S. 244(1) --Refund--Interest--Interest on compensation--All relevant factors to be considered --Assessee entitled to interest provided under statute but not to interest on such statutory interest-- Gujarat Flourochemicals Ltd. v. CIT (Guj) . . . 307
S. 245 --Refund--Adjustment of refund against any sum payable--Meaning of any sum payable--Power of adjustment discretionary--Prior intimation of adjustment mandatory--Finding that no sums were payable--Adjustment not valid-- Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 281
S. 271(1)(c) --Penalty--Concealment of income--Amount added as unexplained investment--Addition deleted--Penalty could not be imposed-- Principal CIT v. J. Upendra Construction P. Ltd. (Guj) . . . 383
----Penalty--Concealment of income--Penalty on ground that there was excess generation of scrap--Finding that there was no such excess--Penalty could not be levied-- CIT v. Gujarat Foils Ltd. (Guj) . . . 324
S. 2(7) --Interest-tax--Charge of tax--Difference between finance agreement and hire purchase agreement--Effect of agreement to be taken into account in deciding nature of agreement--Bank entering into agreement whereby equipment was purchased by it as per requirement of lessee and lessee responsible for repairs--Fact that bank was owner of equipment not conclusive--Agreement was a finance agreement--Bank liable to pay interest-tax on interest component of amount paid by lessee-- CIT v. Axis Bank Ltd. (Guj) . . . 293
CPA exam is more than just a test
(JoA) All CPAs can relate to the challenges associated with passing the CPA exam. With the exam undergoing an update, several CPAs shared their stories of preparing for a rigorous exam that's a rite of passage for the profession.
(JoA) All CPAs can relate to the challenges associated with passing the CPA exam. With the exam undergoing an update, several CPAs shared their stories of preparing for a rigorous exam that's a rite of passage for the profession.
MCA to make Annual filing forms available w.e.f. 25th September, 2015
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has issued a General notice dated 24th September, 2015 for the introduction of New forms AOC-4(Non-XBRL), MGT-7, ADT-2 & SH-9 is being made available w.e.f 25th September 2015 along with C&I Validation tool beta version. You are requested to plan accordingly.
New Versions of forms CRA-4 and CHG-4 are also likely to be modified w.e.f 25th Sept 2015.
Stakeholders are requested to plan accordingly.
Patent Office rejects Google invention on online ads; PM Modi promises IPR protection to US cos.
Patent Office rejects Google invention on online ads; PM Modi promises IPR protection to US cos
‘Prior user’ alone insufficient to establish passing-off when trademark ‘descriptive’
HC denies temporary relief to Pidilite Industries Ltd (‘plaintiff’) in passing off case against chemical manufacturing co. (‘defendant’), alleging use of identical trademark ‘LEAKGUARD’; Rejects plaintiff’s ‘prior user’ claim, notes that the mark was unregistered and ‘descriptive’, states that in case of descriptive mark only prior user is insufficient, “extensive and continuous” use leading to ‘secondary meaning’ (distinctiveness) of trademark has to be proved; Further rejects plaintiff’s contention that proof of deception of customer was not required as marks in question were identical, thus there was presumed confusion; Holds that, “It is entirely possible that two persons may be using the identical descriptive marks in respect of the same series of goods.. both having.. sufficient evidence of use, expense and market share to make it impossible to conclude that it is only the plaintiff’s mark that reigns.. In a matter such as this, though not in every case, I would expect there to be some evidence of such confusion or deception”; Relies on SC ruling in Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v Girnar Good & Beverages (P) Ltd, Delhi HC rulings in Rich Products Corporation & Anr. v Indo Nippon Food Ltd., Indian Shaving Products Ltd. & Anr. v Gift Pack and commentaries in Kerly on Trade Marks, Narayanan on Trade Marks:Bombay HC
The ruling was delivered by Justice G. S. Patel.
Senior Advocate Dr. V. V. Tulzapurkar alongwith Advocates Sandip Parikh, Ashish Kamat, Rahul Duote, Minesh Andharia and Hemant Thadani argued on behalf of plaintiffs. Defendant was represented by Advocates B. Saraf, Vinod Bhagat, Dhiren Karania, Punit Jain and V. Bhagat.
Dear Patrons,
Issue of stamp duty on corporate arrangements like mergers, amalgamations and demergers has been highly litigated despite SC pronouncing in 2004 that HC order approving such scheme u/s 391-394 of Companies Act, 1956 is a ‘conveyance’ and hence, subject to stamp duty. Corporates were taking a position that in the absence of specific entry for corporate arrangements in the Schedule to Indian Stamp Act, no stamp duty would be payable on such Court orders.
Mr. Gajendra Maheshwari (Managing Partner, Reina Legal) and Mr. Ankur Jain (Partner) analyse the present situation, particularly in the State of Delhi, in light of HC decision in Delhi Towers Ltd. vs G.N.C.T. of Delhi. According to the authors, though HC has slayed all doubts regarding applicability of stamp duty on corporate arrangements, lack of effective assessment and recovery mechanism has resulted in many Court orders remaining unstamped.
However, authorities have in recent times started issuing notices for recovery of stamp duty arrears and in this regard, the authors point out the ways in which quantum of duty payable can be reduced significantly.
Authors strongly urge introduction of specific entry for such transactions in respective Stamp Duty Schedules of States, which would be bring more certainty and enable Companies to pay duty on self assessment basis.
Click here to read their article titled “Stamp Duty Ghost Haunts Corporate Arrangements”
Best Regards
LSI Team
US Court : Samsung infringes iPhone’s ‘slide-to-unlock’, ‘auto-correct’ patents; Vacates District Court injunction denial order
U.S. Court of Appeal by a 2-1 majority, vacates district court’s order that denied permanent injunction to Apple against Samsung, alleging infringement of its patents used in iPhone, viz., slide-to-unlock, auto correct and data detection features, remands matter back; Apple had sought to bar Samsung from implementing infringing features in its phone, and did not seek to enjoin Samsung’s infringing smartphones and tablets, but this was denied by district court on the ground that Apple could not prove ‘causal nexus’ & ‘irreparable harm’; On requirement of “causal nexus” to grant injunction, Circuit Judge Moore (forming majority opinion) holds that, “The evidence establishes that Samsung was Apple’s biggest rival, its fiercest competitor”, thus states that although the evidence may not make a strong case of irreparable harm, Apple satisfied causal nexus requirement, thus established irreparable harm; Observes that despite district court’s finding that ‘balance of hardships’ and ‘public interest’ weighed strongly in favor of an injunction, district court denied injunction, holds “district court abused its discretion when it did not enjoin Samsung’s infringement. If an injunction were not to issue in this case, such a decision would virtually foreclose the possibility of injunctive relief in any multifaceted, multifunction technology”; Circuit Judge Reyna concurring with Judge Moore’s opinion, states that reputation of Apple was injured by Samsung, holds “Apple’s reputational injury is all the more important here because of the nature of Apple’s reputation, i.e., one of an innovator, ... Samsung’s infringement amounted to an irreparable injury to Apple’s right to exclude”; However, Chief Judge Prost dissents (forming minority opinion), observes that evidence produced by Apple lacked any connection to critical details establishing infringement, states “handful of internal Samsung documents cited by Apple merely addressed generic or un-patented aspects of Apple’s linking and screen-unlocking features”, thus, holds that there is no basis to reverse district court’s denial of Apple’s injunction request: U.S. Court of Appeal
__._,_.___
Posted by: Sandeep Kadakia <sandeep.kadakia@forbes.co.in>
receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.
To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment