ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
HC upheld the RD's suo motu jurisdiction under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, holding that it extends beyond trademark infringement and may be exercised whenever a company's name is identical with, or too nearly resembles, that of an existing company. Applying the "structural and phonetic resemblance" test, HC found the petitioner's and respondent no. 2's corporate names substantially identical, differing only in the first word, and therefore falling within the statutory embargo. HC held that the RD need not establish likelihood of deception or confusion, and that no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown. The impugned order directing change of name was sustained and the writ petition was dismissed.
HC upheld the RD's suo motu jurisdiction under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, holding that it extends beyond trademark infringement and may be exercised whenever a company's name is identical with, or too nearly resembles, that of an existing company. Applying the "structural and phonetic resemblance" test, HC found the petitioner's and respondent no. 2's corporate names substantially identical, differing only in the first word, and therefore falling within the statutory embargo. HC held that the RD need not establish likelihood of deception or confusion, and that no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown. The impugned order directing change of name was sustained and the writ petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
