abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Unit No. 2142018, 2nd Floor Circle 4(2) Narain Manzil, Barakhamba Road, Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN AAACC 4175 D ITA No. 1038/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 200506] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. Canon India Pvt Ltd Circle 4(2) Unit No. 2142018, 2nd Floor New Delhi Narain Manzil, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi Delhi PAN AAAFK 4094 N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv Shri Jainender Singh Kataria, Adv Shri Prashant Meherchandani, Adv Department By : Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CITDR ITA No. 5855/DEL/2021 [A.Y. 200304] CO No. 04/DEL/2025 ITA No. 1038/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 200506] Canon India Pvt Ltd Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The above captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the DRP1, New Delhi dated 20.01.2021 for A.Y 200304. The Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Delhi dated 21.12.2021 pertaining to Assessment Year 200506. The assessee has preferred cross objection against this order of the ld. CIT(A), Delhi dated 21.12.2021 pertaining to Assessment Years 200506. 2. Since underlying facts pertain to same assessee and identical issues are involved in the captioned appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 585/DEL/2021 [A.Y. 200304] [Assessee's Appeal] 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in not granting complete credit of taxes paid by it in Japan on export Page 2 of 38 ITA No. 5855/DEL/2021 [A.Y. 200304] CO No. 04/DEL/2025 ITA No. 1038/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 200506] Canon India Pvt Ltd revenues from sale of software and not restricted owing to nil tax liability on account of business losses or 10A deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in not allowing complete credit of taxes paid by assessee in Japan on export revenues from sale of software amounting to Rs 20,39,37,900. 1.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and DRP has erred in not adjudicating the claim of foreign tax credit and has framed a nonspeaking order to that extent apparently ignoring the submissions duly filed by the assessee. 1.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has erred in not adjudicating the additional ground of objection raised by the Assessee during the DRP proceedings for grant of taxes paid in Japan. 1.4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and DRP has erred in not allowing complete credit of taxes paid by assessee in Japan by disregarding the judicial precedents placed by the assessee on record. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting complete credit of taxes withheld at source (by the deductors in India) claimed in the revised return of income amounting to RS 23,90,314/." Page 3 of 38 ITA No.
Delhi High Court Orders Paramount Communications Limited vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited on 22 August, 2022 $~7 * + ARB.P. 787/2020 PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Chawla, Advocate with Ms. Monika Madaan, Advocate versus BHARAT BROADBAND NETWORK LIMITED..... Respondent Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI ORDER % 22.08.2022 By way of the present petition under section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 ('A&C Act' for short), the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that are stated to have arisen with the respondent from Tender Document dated 03.04.2013. The petition is premised on clause III.20 contained in the Notice inviting eTender ('NIT' for short), which contemplates reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996; with the'venue' of arbitration being at New Delhi; and upon notice dated 18.03.2020 issued by the petitioner by which it raised its demands and invoked arbitration. 2. In response to the notice issued on 22.10.2020, the respondent has filed reply dated 12.04.2021 and has also placed before the court written submissions dated 27.05.2022; based on which Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has raised the following principal objections to the petition : Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT Signing Date:30.08.2022 Arb. P. 787/2020 Page 1 of 6 12:51:35 (i) That pursuant to NIT issued by the respondent and bids having been placed, the petitioner was awarded the tender in respect of 02 separate locations under 02 separate purchase orders. It is argued that upon issuance of the purchase orders, the arbitration clause contained in the NIT stood effaced interalia for the reason that the NIT in itself did not amount to a concluded contract and only the purchase orders were concluded contracts. It is submitted however, that the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause contained in the NIT, which is not enforceable since the NIT was not a concluded contract at all; (ii) That the petitioner has invoked arbitration and has sought appointment of an arbitrator, by way of a single arbitration petition,in respect of alleged disputes that have arisen from two separate purchase orders, which are two separate and independent contracts; and therefore, such relief cannot be prayedfor by way of a single petition. 3. In response to the objections so raised, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the 02 purchase orders, both dated 25.03.2014, to submit that 02 separate purchase orders were issued only since these relate to two separate 'packages' under the same NIT, namely Package A and Package F. It is submitted that both purchase orders contained the following condition, by reason of which the General Commercial Conditions
Delhi High Court Ey Global Services Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & ... on 9 December, 2021 * Reserved on: 24th November, 2021 Date of Decision: 9th December, 2021 + W.P.(C) 11957/2016 & CM 27602/2021 EY GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Kamal Sawhney with Mr.Sparsh Bhargava, Mr.Ankit Sachdeva & Mr.Divyansh Singh, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. Standing Counsel. + W.P.(C) 12003/2016 & CM 26831/2021 EYGBS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Kamal Sawhney with Mr.Sparsh Bhargava, Mr.Ankit Sachdeva & Mr.Divyansh Singh, Advs. versus JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA WP(C) 11957/2016 & 12003/2016 Page 1 of 22 Signing Date:10.12.2021 18:30:13 NAVIN CHAWLA, J. 1. These petition(s) challenge the Rulings/Orders both dated 10.08.2016 of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „AAR‟) in the Application(s), being AAR No. 1043 of 2011; AAR No. 1408 of 2012; and AAR No. 1409 of 2012. 2. The Application, being AAR No. 1043 of 2011, was filed by EY Global Services Ltd. (formally known as EYGBS Ltd). The Application(s), being AAR No. 1408 of 2012 and 1409 of 2012, were filed by M/s EYME Technologies Private Limited and EYGBS (India) Private Limited, respectively. As recorded in the Impugned Ruling dated 10.08.2016, M/s EYME Technologies Private Limited has been amalgamated with EYGBS (India) Private Limited with effect from 01.04.2016 and therefore, at the request of EYGBS (India) Private Limited, a common order was passed in the two references. The same has been challenged by EYGBS (India) Private Limited before us by way of W.P. (C) 12003 of 2016. 3. In the Application(s), being AAR No. 1408 of 2012 and AAR No. 1409 of 2012, the learned AAR has followed its Ruling in AAR No. 1403 of 2011 and therefore, reference in the present judgment will be made to the facts from the writ petition, being W.P.(C) 11957 of 2016, which arises out of the said Impugned Ruling. 4. The learned AAR in its Impugned Ruling dated 10.08.2016 records that the EY Global Services Ltd. (EYGSL) UK [hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA WP(C) 11957/2016 & 12003/2016 Page 2 of 22 Signing Date:10.12.2021 18:30:13 referred to as the „EYGSL (UK)‟] is a limited liability company engaged in providing technology and other support services and software licences to member firms of the EY network in various
(Maharashtra). It had filed its return on 27.09.2013 declaring total income of ₹244,15,02,590/ followed by sec.115JB book profit computation of ₹312,05,64,000/. The Assessing Officer completed regular assessment in question dated 29.01.2016 making various disallowance(s) / addition(s). It is the said regular assessment which form subjectmatter of the CIT's sec. 263 revision directions under challenge on the ground that although the assessee had claimed corporate social responsibility "CSR" expenditure deduction of ₹5,13,36,000/, the Assessing Officer neither carried out any enquiry nor discussed the said issue in his assessment order dated 29.01.2016. He therefore takes into consideration sec.135 of the Companies Act 2013 r.w.s sec. 37; as amended by the Finance Act, 2014 inserting Explantion2 that "CSR" shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession, the explanatory notes in Circular No.1 of 2015 dated 21.01.2015 as well as various judicial precedents dealing with the said amendment alongwith sec. 263(1) Explanton2 incorporated w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to hold that the Assessing Officer needs to examine the assessee's claim of "CSR" afresh after conducting necessary investigation and followed by verification of facts. 3. Mr. Bhattacharya first of all invited our attention to the assessee's petition dated 12.12.2019 seeking to admit its additional ground that the CIT has not appreciated the fact of it being a Government of India enterprise supposed to follow the corresponding "CSR" guidelines issued PSUs. The Revenue's case is that the assessee is not entitled to raise its instant additional substantive ground at this belated stage and more so, what the relevant facts do not part of record. It fails to dispute that the assessee's main substantive ground(s) already raise the very issue of allowability of "CSR" expenses borne by a PSU controlled by the Government of India sec. 37 of the Act since incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. ITA No.900/Kol/2018 A.Y. 201314 Hindustan Copper Ltd. Vs. CITLTU1, Kol. Page 3 Hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in National Thermal Power Corporation. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Incometax (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) considered in tribunal's special bench All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 26 (Mum) holds that we can very well entertain a pure question of law by way of additional ground in order to determine the correct tax liability provided relevant facts form part of record. We take into account the s
1. Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairmancum Managing Director, Darbhanga House, PORanchi University, PSKotwali Ranchi, DistrictRanchi. 2. The Director (personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, PO Ranchi University, PSKotwali Ranchi, DistrictRanchi. 3. The General Manager, Charhi Area, Central Coalfields Limited, POCharhi, PSCharhi, DistrictHazaribagh. 4. The Project Officer, Kedla Open Cast Project, Charhi Area, Central Coalfields Limited, POCharhi, PSCharhi, District Hazaribagh. 5. The Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through its Commissioner, Hirapur, PO+PSHirapur, DistrictDhanbad. ... ... Respondent(s) CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Shubham M. Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Karbir, Advocate th 02/ 09 December, 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. Since the dispute is in relation to the fact that whether the petitioner is an imposter or not and whether he has entered in service by impersonating, is pending to be decided before the CGITcumLabour Court, Dhanbad in ID case No.3/2017, no order can be passed in this writ petition at this stage. Unless a clear decision on facts is arrived at as to whether the petitioner was an imposter or not, in my opinion, he is not entitled for any benefits. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Western Coal Fields Ltd. v. Manohar Govinda Fulzele, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 345 at para 15 has held as follows: "15. The appointment itself being illegal, there is no question of the terminated employee seeking fruits of his employment by way of gratuity. We uphold the decision of the PSU forfeiting his entire gratuity...." 1 2025:JHHC:36858 4. Thus, this writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, if necessary, once a decision is taken by the CGITcumLabour Court, Dhanbad. 5. It is expected that the CGITcumLabour Court, Dhanbad, will expedite and try to dispose of the dispute preferably within a period of 09 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 09.12.2025 S.K.D.Cp2 Uploaded on 10.12.2025 2
not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies‟. Moreover, while trespasses will not be forgiven, a presumption of constitutionality must colour judicial construction. These factors, recognized our Court, are essential to the modus vivendi between the judicial and legislative branches of the State, both working beneath the canopy of the Constitution." 2. That apart, in the case of Charanjit Lal Chowdhary versus Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41, it has been held thus: "It is the accepted doctrine of American Courts, which I consider to be well founded on principle, that the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment, and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles." 3. In Ram Krishna Dalmia and Others versus Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others, AIR 1958 SC 538, the Apex Court ruled that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is on him who challenges the same to show that there has been a clear WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1138/2010 Page 2 of 23 transgression of the constitutional principles and it is the duty of the Court to sustain that there is a presumption of constitutionality and in doing so, the Court may take into consideration, the matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation. 4. In State of Bihar and Others versus Bihar Distillery Limited, AIR 1997 SC 1511, the said principle was reiterated. 5. We have referred to the aforesaid authorities for the sanguine and sacrosanct reason as in this writ petition the petitioner, Esab India Limited, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for declaring Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity, „the Act‟) as unconstitutional and also for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 11th May, 2009, AnnexureP7, passed by the Central Information Commission. We are disposed to think that the seemly cogitation is to be done in the backdrop of the „caveat‟. The modus vivendi which requires a purposive and constructive ratiocination while engaged in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1138/2010 Page 3 of 23 viceration of the provision, a legislative one, though may draw strength and stimulus in all i
lal Page 1 of 19 singh Digitally signed by lal singh Date: 2025.07.30 15:40:47 +0530 Date of institution : 05.02.2022 Date of reserving judgment : 21.05.2025 Date of judgment : 30.07.2025 JUDGMENT 1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,85,647/ alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. 2. It is stated that the plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing of readymix concrete / RMC and plaintiff is also registered under the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises having its Udyam registration No. UDYAMHR030005025. It is stated that the defendant no.2 is mainly in the business of mining, excavation, bulk material handling, pipe laying, erection and other such activities and the defendant no.1 is involved in Real Estate Business of building housing as well as commercial projects, working under the aegis of Godrej Group. The defendant no.3 and 4 are the Project Manager and Associate Project Manager, respectively with the defendant no.1. 3. It is averred that on 01.12.2019, the defendant no.2 alongwith defendant no.3 and 4 on behalf of defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff and expressed their requirement for ReadyMix Concrete (RMC) for project of the defendant no.1 / Godrej Properties and apprised the plaintiff that defendant no.1 and 2 are working together, who want the delivery of the said readymix concrete at the site i.e. B319, Okhla PhaseI, Near Crown Plaza, New Delhi. Plaintiff also averred that in furtherance of meeting dated 01.12.2019, the defendant no.2 issued a purchase order to the plaintiff for the aforesaid RMC on 13.12.2019 for an approx. quantity of 400/500 M3 with CS (Comm) No. 220/2022 Digitally M/s. Nutech Concrete Vs. Godrej Properties & Ors. signed byPage 2 of 19 lal lal singh Date: singh 2025.07.30 15:40:58 +0530 M20 grade, alongwith a guarantee cheque. Subsequently, as per the work / purchase order dated 13.12.2019, the plaintiff had been duly delivering its product i.e. RMC to the defendants and the staff and officials of the defendant no.1 had been duly accepting and acknowledging the invoices and challans as and when same were delivered at their site as mentioned above. It is stated that the plaintiff had opened a ledger account in the defendant's name, and whenever any transactions were done, the same were entered in the said ledger account / books of account. Plaintiff also averred that the defendants purchased the readymix concrete (RMC) approx. quantity 400/500 M3 with M20 grade and according
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jai Kishore Sharma, Advocate Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, S.C.6 Mr. Sushant Praveer, A.C. to S.C.6 For the L & T Comp. : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate ORAL ORDER 3 18092019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent no. 4 as also learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the State accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3. The petitioner in the present case is seeking to challenge the order as contained in minutes of the meeting dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Council") in Reference Case No. 01/2015 by which the Council directed both the parties Patna High Court CWJC No.11136 of 2019(3) dt.18092019 2/7 to the dispute to amicably settle the amount of interest and inform the Council. The subsequent orders passed by the Council by which the Council declared that the conciliation has failed and then the matter has been referred to the sole arbitrator who is a retired Judge of this Hon'ble Court have been challenged on the grounds inter alia that once the Council had come to a conclusion that there is a delay in payment of the dues of the petitioner/supplier for which the petitioner would be entitled for interest, the Council was not justified in sending the matter for amicable settlement between the parties on the amount of interest. It is submitted that the scheme of the provisions of Section 15 to 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "MSMED Act of 2006") would show that the legislatures have provided the rate of interest which is required to be paid for the delayed payment. It is further contention of learned counsel for Patna High Court CWJC No.11136 of 2019(3) dt.18092019 3/7 the petitioner that the order of the Council saying that the Council agreed to award interest under the provisions of the amount of interest as recorded in the minutes of the meeting held on 16 th November, 2017 had attained finality, therefore, only thing which was required to be done by the Council was to proceed to award the interest in terms of the provisions of the statute itself. It is further contended that in terms of Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act of 2006, once the conciliation failed, the Council had to either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services, but in this case despite the request made by the petitioner to the Council to take up the dispute for arbitration itself, the Council proceeded to call for the names of the arbitrators from the panel of the arbitrators through the learned Registrar General of this Hon'ble High Cour