Delhi Registered Office Doesn't Confer Jurisdiction Over UP Tax Audit Dispute: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that merely because the registered office of a company whose accounts were audited is situated in Delhi, it does not mean that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dismissed a petition filed by a Chartered Accountants firm challenging a dispute concerning its fee bill and interest arising from its appointment as a Special Auditor. It held: ...

Delhi High Court Stays FSSAI Notice Against FDC's Enerzal For 8 Months Over 'Electrolyte' Label

On 25 August, the Delhi High Court stayed a notice of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) directing FDC Limited to stop using the terms “electrolyte” and “electrolyte drink” on its Enerzal products for eight months, after noting that the company had not been issued an improvement notice under Section 32 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act). Section 32 requires a prior improvement notice giving a food business an opportunity to rectify violations. Justice...

Delhi High Court Restrains Ajmer Spa From Using "ANANTARA" For Similarity With MHG IP Holding's Mark

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Anantara Spa and Massage, an Ajmer-based spa, from using the mark “ANANTARA” or any deceptively similar variant in a trademark infringement suit filed by MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd which is part of the Minor International Public Company Limited group, widely known as the 'Minor Hotel Group'. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex-parte ad interim injunction, noting that MHG IP held valid and subsisting registrations for the ANANTARA mark since...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Sale Of 'SCALP SAYY' Hair Care Products For Similar To 'SAYY'

The Delhi High Court on 21 August temporarily restrained Bhuva Ankitkumar Jaysukhbhai, a sole proprietor from manufacturing, marketing and selling hair care and cosmetic products under the mark “SCALP SAYY”. Justice Jyoti Singh found it deceptively similar to the plaintiff Sayy Partnership Firm's trademark “SAYY”. She observed that the “defendant's mark SCALP SAYY subsumes Plaintiff's mark SAYY (word) in entirety.”The plaintiff claimed to be the prior adopter and user of the mark “SAYY” since...

MSME Registration Does Not Automatically Override Existing Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 25 August held that registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) does not by itself override an agreed contractual arbitration mechanism, where the statutory process before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has not actually been invoked. Justice Amit Borkar allowed Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited's application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Advocate...

Delhi High Court Cancels 'STONEX WORLD' Mark Finding Likelihood Of Confusion With 'STONEX India Pvt Ltd'

The Delhi High Court on 10 August cancelled the registration of the trademark “STONEX WORLD” held by individual proprietor Mohit Kumawat, after finding it deceptively similar to the registered “STONEX” marks of Stonex India Private Limited, a dealer in marble and natural stone. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed a rectification petition filed by Stonex India under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, holding that “the averments of the petition including the aforesaid allegations are deemed to be...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trademark Registry Order Refusing “AYU LIFESCIENCE” Registration

The Delhi High Court on 21 August set aside the Trademark Registry's order refusing to register the device mark “AYU LIFESCIENCE”, finding that the Registry could not rely on cited marks without first examining whether they were validly subsisting on the register. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed an appeal filed by Ayu Lifescience Industries FZE against the Registry's order dated 10 October 2025, which had refused registration under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act on the ground that the applied...

Delhi High Court Quashes Tax Demand Against Ex-Kingfisher Airlines Employee Over Undeposited TDS

The Delhi High Court on 21 August quashed a tax demand raised against a taxpayer after finding that his former employer, Kingfisher Airlines, failed to deposit the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deducted from his salary. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta allowed the petition and directed the Revenue to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within three months. The dispute arose from an intimation dated 23 September 2025 issued under Section 143(1) of...

Calcutta HC Upholds ₹752 Cr. Relief For Syama Prasad Port, Says Actuarial Contributions Not Limited

The Calcutta High Court on 21 August upheld the deletion of tax disallowances totalling over Rs.752 crore from the assessment of Syama Prasad Mookherjee Port, Kolkata, (formerly Kolkata Port Trust) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata's order. A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar observed that extraordinary contributions to approved superannuation and gratuity funds made to meet actuarial shortfalls cannot...

Rajasthan High Court Says Customs Cannot Recover Excess Drawback Without Reassessment

The Rajasthan High Court on 12 August held that Customs authorities cannot directly invoke Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to recover alleged excess drawback without first reassessing the exporter's self-assessment under Section 17 of the Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices Munnuri Laxman and Sangeeta Sharma allowed writ petitions filed by Bhati & Company and Latiyal Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. and granted the Customs authorities liberty to proceed under Sections 17 and 18 of the...

Delhi High Court Questions Income Tax Dept's Withholding Of ₹71.71 Lakh Refund Against ₹1.25 Lakh Demand

The Delhi High Court on 21 August questioned the Income Tax Department's decision to withhold the entire refund of Rs.71.71 lakh payable to Civitech Housing India against an outstanding demand of only Rs.1.25 lakh. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it failed to comprehend why such a “meagre” demand warranted withholding the entire refund. It observed: “We fail to comprehend that while would the respondents withheld the entire refund of...

Delhi High Court Upholds ₹3.65 Crore Advance Tax Credit Against Capital Gains Liability

The Delhi High Court on 21 August upheld an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order directing the Income Tax Department to allow Marguerite Lasusa Chawla, a taxpayer, credit of Rs. 3.65 crore advance tax paid in an earlier assessment year against her capital gains tax liability arising in a subsequent assessment year. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed: "Technically and legally, the advance tax…deposited and the return furnished by the respondent...