sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
« From the Courts »
 M/s A Daga Royal Arts vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
 Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)

SC asks Delhi HC to end row between Toshiba and Tosiba
June, 02nd 2008

The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi high court to settle the dispute between Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba (Toshiba Corporation) of Japan and an Indian company, Tosiba Appliances Co, over the use of the trade mark Toshiba/Tosiba at the earliest. The Japanese company complained that the Indian company is using a word sounding similar to its trade mark Toshiba. The Indian company argued that the Toshiba Corporation was not using the name for a long time in respect to several electrical products.

Therefore, the registrar of trade mark rightly deleted those products from the registration. The companies fought the legal battle in the Calcutta and Delhi high courts. The Calcutta high court upheld the registrar's view. The Supreme Court quashed that judgment and asked the Delhi high court to decide the petition moved by the Japanese corporation.

Compensation doubled to Rs 2.50 lakh for accident victim

The Supreme Court has set aside the ruling of the Karnataka high court and rejected the argument of United India Insurance in a case of compensation for loss of the right leg of a driver in a road accident. The high court had held that loss of the right leg up to the knee was only 60 per cent reduction in the earning capacity under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the loss of earning capacity in such a case was 100 per cent and doubled the compensation to Rs 2.50 lakh.

SC on customs duty exemption to pvt hospitals

Private hospitals and clinics are entitled to customs duty exemption on imported medical equipment only if they provide free treatment to a certain percentage of poor patients, the Supreme Court has reiterated. Dismissing an appeal moved by Andromeda Foundation India Pvt Ltd which challenged the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgement that held the company was liable to pay customs duty on the imported equipment, the judgment said: "We are also conscious of the large scale misuse of the medical equipment imported under the exemption notification ... It is essential that the authorities regularly monitor the use of the equipment."The state government had slapped a notice for recovery of customs duty on the equipment imported by the hospital.

UP State Mineral Development gets reprieve from SC

The Supreme Court has set aside the ruling of the Allahabad high court which had asked the Uttar Pradesh State Mineral Development Corporation to take back workers who had been laid off due to severe financial crunch in the establishment. The court also held that the employees did not have a right to absorption in other government wings, as claimed by them. "Such a right must be a subsisting right and enforceable in a court of law," the court said while allowing the appeal of the state government.

SC quashes central excise authorities' appeal

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the central excise authorities, which had accused Indian Thermit Corporation Ltd and its subsidiary Asiatic Thermatics Ltd of suppressing facts and undervaluing their products used by Indian Railways.

Their managing directors were imposed penalty of Rs 1 lakh each. The tribunal had quashed the demand for differential excise duty from both companies and the penalty on the managing directors. The Commissioner of Central Excise moved the Supreme Court but his appeals were dismissed clarifying that there was no undervaluation.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Article Management Solutions System Article Management Software S

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions