The Delhi High Court noted that the trademark "MOTHER DAIRY", and the "MOTHER DAIRY (Blue Logo)" are used by the plaintiff on the packaging of its diverse range of products, promotional material. The logo/mark adopted by the defendants is clearly deceptively and confusingly similar to the logo/mark used by the plaintiff on its products and, thus, infringes the rights of the latter. Thus, a case for permanent injunction against copying or infringing of the plaintiff’s trademark and logo "Mother Dairy" with the distinctive blue and white colour combination and packaging identical or similar to that of the plaintiff has been brought home against the defendants.
As such, the suit was partly decreed in the mentioned terms in the plaintiff’s favor.
24-Dec-2016 read more
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, referring to a case of the Karnataka High Court, held that the payment of privilege fee/special privilege fee etc., by whatever name called is an allowable expenditure. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the privilege fee, special privilege fee and the special privilege force as expenditure of the assessee u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the assessee's contention is that the assessee pays the premium after the interest credited by the LIC is reduced from the premium to be paid. This contention needs verification. If the interest credited by LIC is taken as income of the assessee, the entire premium payable by the assessee for the next A.Y should be considered as expenditure of the assessee. Therefore, this issue is remitted to the file of the AO for verification of the assessee's contention and allowing the same in accordance with the law. The net result would, however, be "nil" if the assessee's contentions are proven to be correct.
As such, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
21-Dec-2016 read more
Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has given its ex-post facto approval to the MoU between India and United Kingdom (UK) to support Ease of Doing Business in India
07-Dec-2016 read more
The Delhi High Court held that Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 prohibits the institution of any suit in any court by a person who is suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or have been a partner in the said firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. However, if the firm is dissolved then non-registration of firm does not come into way and suit can be filed by the partner of a dissolved firm. In the instant case, it is not the plaintiffs’ case that the firm was dissolved rather in prayer that they claim dissolution of firm. Thus, the suit of the plaintiffs was barred under Section 69 of the Act.
As such, the suit was dismissed.
01-Dec-2016 read more
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the notice as prescribed under sub section (2) of Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not properly served on the assessee. Thus, the assessment order dt: 30-12-2010 made u/sec 144 of the Act and as confirmed by the CIT-A is held to be invalid and it is quashed.
As such, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
30-Nov-2016 read more