Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The SC held that the complainant, a corporate entity, was not a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the purchase of a software license was for commercial purposes to automate operations and maximise profits, not for self-employment or personal livelihood. The Court distinguished self-employed individuals from corporate entities, observing that the Explanation excludes only goods/services used exclusively for earning livelihood by self-employment. Both the State Commission and the National Commission correctly found lack of maintainability of the complaint on the consumer law forum. Consequently, the complaint was non-maintainable under the Act and the appeal was dismissed.
The SC held that the complainant, a corporate entity, was not a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the purchase of a software license was for commercial purposes to automate operations and maximise profits, not for self-employment or personal livelihood. The Court distinguished self-employed individuals from corporate entities, observing that the Explanation excludes only goods/services used exclusively for earning livelihood by self-employment. Both the State Commission and the National Commission correctly found lack of maintainability of the complaint on the consumer law forum. Consequently, the complaint was non-maintainable under the Act and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
