Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
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 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
