w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustees for Invesco Perpetual Global & Others DIT (International Taxation) Mumbai


Company & Directors' Information:- INVESCO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2012PTC078512

Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74999DL1992PLC048880

Company & Directors' Information:- A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102GJ2008PTC053840

Company & Directors' Information:- T. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL1997PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36911UP1999PLC024754

Company & Directors' Information:- INVESCO TRUSTEE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65991MH2005PTC153638

Company & Directors' Information:- TAXATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2000PTC106716

    A.A.R. NO. 647, 648, 649 and 650 OF 2004

    Decided On, 29 July 2005

    At, Authority For Advance Rulings Income Tax New Delhi

    By, HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI (CHAIRMAN)MR. A.S. NARANG (MEMBER)

    Present for the Departments Mr. T.N. Chopra (Special Counsel). Present for the Applicants Mr. Porus Kaka, Advocate and others.



Judgment Text

Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri


The following common question is set forth in these four applications, under section 245Q(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ?Act?):-


?Whether in respect of the transaction, being the reorganization described in Annexure 2 of this application, the applicant is chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 or the agreement for avoidance of double taxation between India and the United Kingdom?.


2. In as much as the said common question arises out of identical facts, we shall refer to the facts narrated in the first mentioned application (AAR/647/2004). The applicant is a limited company incorporated in Great Britain and is a tax resident of the United Kingdom(U.K). The applicant was initially a trustee for a group of funds including Invesco Perpetual Global Smaller Companies Fund (Invesco Funds). Those funds were managed by Invesco Funds Managers Ltd., a company incorporated in Great Britain and a tax resident of U.K. The said funds were constituted as Unit Trusts under various trust deeds for the purpose of providing an investment vehicle to investors to earn profits. The applicant was registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as a Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) under the SEBI (Foreign Institutional Investors) Regulations, 1995 and made investments in Indian securities in accordance with the said regulations. The applicant states that it does not have a branch office or a place of business in India nor does it have any employee of its own or any investment advisor or agent in India. The transactions of purchase or sale of securities in India are carried on through brokers. The Indian securities of the applicant are held by the local custodian - ?Citi Bank, Mumbai? -, which renders services to several other entities in ordinary course of its business.


3. With a view to avail of various advantages in terms of flexibility, transparency, cost and services in accordance with the regulations prescribed by Financial Services Authority(FSA) in U.K., it was decided to convert Unit Trusts into sub- funds of open-ended investment companies (OEIC?s). The Invesco Funds including Invesco Perpetual Global Smaller Companies Fund were reorganized under a scheme in September, 2003. The reorganisation involved appropriating the assets of each unit trust into two separate and distinct funds ? (I) liquidation fund and (2) unit holders fund. The liquidation fund was created to meet outstanding liabilities, if any, of the unit trusts and the unit holders fund, which comprises of the balance of the assets of unit trust, was to be appropriated for the purpose of corresponding sub-funds of OEICs?. Each unit holder was given shares on the basis of one share for one unit and consequently, every unit was deemed to be cancelled and the trust deeds ceased to have effect. It is asserted that there was no sale, exchange, or extinguishments of underlying assets (including the Indian securities) as a result of change from the Unit trusts to the OEICs. There was also no payment of consideration by the OEICs to the Unit trusts. The applicant continued to be the owner of shares in Indian companies as before but it would, after reorganization, act as the depository of the OEICs instead of as the trustee of the Invesco funds. There was no change in the beneficial ownership of the Unit Trusts nor was there any change in the effective beneficial ownership of the assets of the Unit Trusts. All the investors in the Unit Trusts became shareholders in the OEICs in the same proportions in which they originally held units. The aforementioned reorganization, it is stated, has the approval of Financial Services Authority (FSA) and enjoys exemption under the Tax Law of UK. After reorganisation, the applicant intimated SEBI of the change in the nomenclature for purposes of continuity of the operations. SEBI approved the change in the name of the Invesco Funds and continuation of portfolio investment in Indian securities by the OEICs.


4. In the comments submitted by the Director of Income-tax (International Taxation), Mumbai, the facts stated by the applicant are not disputed. However the applicant was put to proving the same. The material portion of the comments contained in para 9 reads as follows:-


?The assertions made by CTCL above are questions of fact, and as such, may be determined by Id.AAR. The issue of transfer of Indian securities will arise if the applicant fails to establish that:-


(i) as trustee of the unit trusts it was the ?owner? of the Indian securities.


(ii) as ?Depository? of the OEICs, it still is the ?owner? of the Indian securities.


(iii) the scheme of arrangement is tax exempt in the UK.


(iv) It is permitted under the UK regulations to act as a ?Depository? and Trustee.


In a case of such failure, it is submitted that the Authority may be pleased to hold that the provisions of sec.2(47) will be attracted and capital gains will arise as a transfer will have taken place.?


5. Mr. Porus Kaka, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that the reorganization of the applicant in U.K. is not a transaction chargeable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, nor would it result in transfer, within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act, of Indian securities held by the applicant as all the conditions enumerated in para 9 of the comments of the Commissioner are satisfied. Mr. T.N. Chopra, learned Special Counsel, appearing for the Commissioner drew our attention to the said para 9 of the comments and argued that if anyone of the four conditions was not satisfied the reorganization of the applicant would amount to transfer of Indian securities held by it as defined in section 2(47) of the Act.


6. Chargeability of tax under the Act in respect of a transaction by the applicant ? a non-resident - will have to be examined in light of the section 9(1)(i) of the Act, which is wide enough to cover both residents as well as non-residents. In so far as it is relevant for our purpose, it reads as follows:-


Section 9(1) (i)


?9. (1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India:-


(i) all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through or from any asset or source of income in India, [ * ] or through the transfer of a capital asset situate in India.


x xx xxxx xxxx xx


A non-resident will be taxable in respect of all income deemed to accrue or arise to him in India, inter alia, through transfer of a capital asset situate in India. The capital assets of applicant in India are shares in Indian companies. The reorganisation under examination is in respect of the assets in UK. As a result of reorganisation the position of the applicant as a trustee of the Invesco funds has been changed to that of a depository of OEICs. It is obvious that by itself, it would not attract the provisions of section 9(1) (i) of the Act. If, however, the reorganisation results in transfer of shares held by the applicant in Indian companies, it would attract section 9(1)(i) of the Act.


To invoke section 9(1)(i) of the Act, it must be shown that there is a transfer of capital asset in India within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act, which defines the term ?transfer?, thus :


Section 2(47)


2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -


(47) [?transfer?, in relation to a capital asset, includes-


(i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or


(ii) the extinguishments of any rights therein; or


(iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or


(iv) in a case where the asset is converted by the owner thereof into, or is treated by him as, stock-in-trade of a business carried on by him, such conversion or treatment; ] [or]


(v) any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) ; or


(vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling the enjoyment of, any immoveable property.


Explanation ? For the purposes of sub-clauses (v) and (vi), ?immoveable property? shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of section 269UA.]


At the outset it may be mentioned that clauses (iii) to (vi) thereof are not relevant here. If the reorganisation falls under either clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section 47, it would amount to transfer. Admittedly in this case there is neither sale or exchange or extinguishments of any right in the shares held by the applicant in Indian companies. However, the Commissioner in para (9) of his comments took the plea that if anyone of the four clauses referred to therein is not satisfied, it would amount to transfer within the meaning of section 2(47). We shall now examine this aspect.


Conditions (i) and (ii) may be taken up together as they are two sides of the same coin. They are reproduced here:-


(i) as trustee of the unit trusts it was the ?owner? of the indian securities.


(ii) as ?Depository? of the OEICs, it still is the ?owner? of the Indian securities.


The substance of these two conditions relates to ownership of the Indian securities; whether the applicant which was the owner of the Indian securities as a ?trustee? of the unit holders continues to be the owner of those securities as a ?depository? of the OEICs. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the reorganization of the securities in U.K. resulted in the applicant changing its status from that of a ?trustee? of the unit holders to that of a ?depository? of the OEICs. There is no change in the Indian securities as a consequence of reorganization of the applicant. The change spoken of is in the nomenclature of the applicant. In this connection, it will be useful to read the letter of SEBI dated May 13, 2004 communicating its ?no objection? to the proposed change in the name of the Fund, which reads as follows:-


?Securities and Exchange


Board of India


FII DIVISION


INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT


IMD/FII/9714/2004


May 13, 2004


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited


Citigroup Centre


Canada Square


Canary Wharf


London E 14 5LB


Dear Sirs,


Sub.: Change in the name of the sub-accounts from:


1. Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual Global Smaller Companies Fund to Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual Global Smaller Companies Fund


2. Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual Pacific Fund to Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual Pacific Fund


3. Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual Emerging Countries Fund to Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual Emerging Countries Fund


4. Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Institutional Asia and Australasia Fund to Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Institutional Asia and Australasia Fund


5. Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual Global Dynamic Theme Fund to Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual Global Dynamic Theme Fund


6. Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual International Equity Fund to Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual International Equity Fund


7. Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual Asian Fund to Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual Asian Fund Please refer to the letter dated May 07, 2004 received from your custodian Citibank regarding the above matter. We do not have any objection to the change in name of the sub-accounts from:-


OLD NAME


NEW NAME


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual Global Smaller Companies Fund (1997088)


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual Global Smaller Companies Fund


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual Pacific Fund (1997092)


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository For INVESCO Perpetual Pacific Fund


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual Emerging Countries Fund (2001342)


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual Emerging Countries Fund


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Institutional Asia and Australasia Fund (2001387)


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Institutional Asia and Australasia Fund


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual Global Dynamic Theme Fund (2001365)


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual Global Dynamic Theme Fund


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual International Equity Fund (1997105)


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual International Equity Fund


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Trustee for INVESCO Perpetual Asian Fund (1997090)


Citicorp Trustee Company Limited as Depository for INVESCO Perpetual Asian Fund


Further, please note that the securities held in the existing name will have to be re-registered under the new name.


Yours faithfully,


Sd/-


Archna Ahuja


Officer


cc: The Chief General Manager, Exchange Control Department, Research Bank of India, S B S Marg, Mumbai ? 400 023.


cc: The Manager, Custodial Services, Citibank, Mumbai?


A perusal of the letter, extracted above, discloses that the identity of the applicant as well as the ownership of the applicant of the Indian securities, pre-reorganisation and post-reorganisation remains the same and that change is in the name of the sub-accounts, which was not objected to by SEBI. Further, the duties and responsibilities of the applicant as a ?trustee? and as a ?depository? as prescribed by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) of the UK are said to be identical.


Thus it is clear that conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied.


According to the Commissioner the third condition, which the applicant must satisfy, is that the scheme of arrangement is tax exempt in UK. Mr. Kaka prefaced his submission with the plea that the question as to whether the reorganisation enjoys tax exemption in UK would not be germane to the issue of taxability of applicant in India as a result of reorganisation. Nonetheless he had taken us through various provisions of ?Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988? (ICTA) relating to taxation of income and taxation of capital gains which is governed by the ?Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992?(TCGA) to show that the reorganisation was not taxable in UK.


It will be apt to refer to section 703, 704 and 707 of the ICTA. Section 704 enumerates circumstances under which any tax advantage derived by a person within the meaning of section 703 could be denied or reversed unless the person shows that the transaction was carried out either for bonafide commercial reasons or in the ordinary course of making or managing investments and in either case the main object is not to obtain a tax advantage, otherwise provisions of section 703 deprive him of tax advantages derived by him. Section 707 is an enabling provision under which an application may be made to the Board requesting it to notify that the provisions of sub-section(3) of section 703 will not apply to the proposed transaction.


We may also refer to the relevant provisions of TCGA. Section 126 of the TCGA defines the reorganisation to mean, inter alia, conversion of shares of one class into another within the same company. Section 127 of TCGA provides that subject to sections 128 to 130, a reorganisation shall not be treated as involving any disposal of original shares. Section 137(1) of the TCGA states that provisions of section 136 shall apply only if the proposed transaction is for bonafide commercial reasons and does not form part of the scheme or arrangement the main purpose of which is avoidance of liability to capital gains tax or corporation tax. The procedure for obtaining a clearance from the UK Inland Tax Revenue to the effect that the scheme of reconstruction is for bona fide commercial reasons and that section 137(1) will not apply to the said re-organization, is contained in section 138 of TCGA.


In accordance with the aforementioned provisions the applicant obtained the clearance of the Inland Revenue which is in the following terms:-


?Inland


Revenue


MacFarlanes


10 Norwich Street Revenue Policy


London Business Tax Clearance Team


EC4A 1BD Fifth Floor


22 Kingsway


LONDON


WC2B6NR


Group Leader: Ray McCann Tel 020 7438 7474


Date 16 April 2003 Fax 020 7438 4409


Our ref T1600/1691/03/NR/RMCC www.inlandrevene.gov.uk


Your ref GAC/JAXJ/569646 Email reconstructions@ghnet.gov.uk


recons


Dear Sirs


INVESCO FUND MANAGERS LIMITED


Thank you for your letter of 4 April 2003. I have considered the applications made under S707 ICTA 88, S138(1) TCGA 1992.


S707 ICTA 88 ? Transactions in Securities


I am authorized to say that the Board are satisfied that the provisions of S 703(3) ICTA 1988 should not be applied to the proposed transactions.


Share Exchanges and Reconstructions


I am authorized to say that the Board of Inland Revenue are satisfied that the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 137 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 should not have effect in respect of these transactions, with the result that Section 136 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 would not be prevented from applying.


Yours faithfully,


Sd/-


RAY McCANN?


A plain reading of the letter of the Inland Revenue, extracted above, discloses that condition no. (iii) is satisfied.


In view of this finding we consider it unnecessary to go into the question as to what would have been the position, had the applicant not obtained clearance from the Inland Revenue (Board).


The only condition that remains to be examined is condition no. (iv) i.e. whether ?It is permitted under the UK regulations to act as a ?Depository? and Trustee?. To show that this condition is satisfied it would suffice to refer to the extract of Financial Services Authority Register. FSA Register is a public record of financial services firms and other bodies which fall under its regulatory jurisdiction as defined in the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 of UK, which came into force on December 1, 2001. It shows that the applicant is registered as FSA and that it has necessary permission to act as a trustee and a depository, which reads as under:-


?Financial Services Authority Register


122206 Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd.


Permissions


Activity Name: Acting as the depository or sole director of an open-ended investment company


Customer type


All


Limitation


Limited to acting as depository of an ICVC.


Activity Name : Acting as trustee of an authorized unit trust scheme


Customer type


All


Activity Name : Agreeing to carry on a regulated activity


Limitation


Limited to carry on regulated activities.


Activity Name : Arranging safeg

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

uarding and administration of assets Investment instrument Certificates representing certain security Commodity Future Commodity option and option on commodity future Contract for Differences (excluding a spread bet and a rolling spot forex contract) Debenture Future (excluding a commodity future and a rolling spot forex contract) Government and public security Option (excluding a commodity option and an option on commodity future) Rights to or interests in investments (Contractually Based Investments) Rights to or interests in investments (Security) Rolling spot forex contract Share Spread Bet Unit Warrant Customer type All Limitation Rights/interests ? cont ltd to cont based inv. Rights/interests ? sec ltd to securities listed Limited to trustee activities. Limited to acting as depository of an ICVC. Activity Name : Dealing in investments as agent Investment Instrument? The parties have not adverted to any of the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dated 26.10.1993. It is needless to mention that when no tax liability arises under the Act, the treaty per se does not create any tax liability. From the above discussions, it follows that there has been no transfer of shares in Indian companies held by the applicant as a consequence of the reorganisation of the applicant in U.K. In the result we rule on the common question in the aforementioned applications as under: that in respect of transaction, being reorganisation described in Annexure-II of the application, the applicant is not chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the agreement for avoidance of double taxation between India and the United Kingdom. Pronounced in the open Court of the Authority on this 29th day of July, 2005.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2020 M/s. Life Cell International Private Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary D. Mahesh, Chennai Versus Vinay Katrela High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
17-07-2020 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Delhi International Airport Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-07-2020 Paras International Exports Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
29-06-2020 Coromandel International Ltd. (Earlier Known As Coromandel Fertillisers Ltd.) Through its Authorized Representative, Vishakhapatnam & Others Versus Kamrubai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
12-06-2020 Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-06-2020 Hotel Nikhil Sai International Bar & Restaurant Versus Assistant Commissioner ST Audit & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
04-06-2020 M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd., Represented by its Head Treasury & Taxation & Company Secretary, B. Shivadutt Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Karnataka
01-06-2020 Sri Vinayaka Caterors & Consultants, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners, K. Eshwar Versus The Executive Warden, International Hostels, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-05-2020 Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. Versus Eros International Medial Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 M/s. Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Versus Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennootschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. Versus Axiom Cordages Limited (Previously Known as Axion Impex International Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
08-04-2020 Standard Retail Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. G.S. Global Corp & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 M/s. Meyer Apparel Ltd. Versus M/s. Panchanan International Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-03-2020 Cambridge International School & Another Versus Priyanka Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
28-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Banothu Rangamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
28-02-2020 M/s. Techno Global Services Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-02-2020 Perfect Synergy Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sagar Infra Rail International Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 Saurabh Kar & Another Versus Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Finance Controller, TN Rajan & Another Versus Banothu Tharya & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-02-2020 TEK Systems Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Naveen Kumar Mamidala High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-02-2020 APS Forex Services Private Limited Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Tvl. Manohara Saraswathi Glass Works, Rep. by its Partner, Kuthalam Village, Nagapattinam District V/S The Tamilnadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 Radford Global Limited Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
07-02-2020 Swastik Builders, Satyam Apartments Next to Rowell Continental (Sunny International) & Others Versus Dr. Shobha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-02-2020 Samar Roychoudhury Versus Global Health City West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Alstom T&D India Ltd., Formerly known as Areva T&D India Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Rep. by its authorized signatory, Padappai Versus M/s. Texcel International Pvt., Ltd., Represented by Mukunthan C.O.O, Chengalpattu High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Others Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
27-01-2020 Hotel Soorya International, Represented by its Partner, S. Arumugam Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 M/s. IRCON International Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking), Rep. by its Joint General Manager(South), Bangalore Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer(H), Villupuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-01-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-01-2020 International Car and Motors Ltd. Versus Shyam Sundar Sen & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2020 Export Import Bank of India & Another Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-01-2020 Visteon Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Deputy General Manager (Indirect Taxation), T.A. Bhaskaran, Guindy, Chennai Versus The Deputy Commissioner (CT) – IV (FAC), Large Taxpayers Unit, Egmore, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-01-2020 The Principal , Global Institute of Fashion Technology (GIFT) & Another Versus Bikramadittya Sai & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-01-2020 Union of India rep. By its Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Versus M/s. Raiments & Garments International, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Phoenix International Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
06-01-2020 Haryana Excise & Taxation Welfare Organisation Versus M/s. Kone Elevator India Pvt Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 M/s. Prime Gold International Limited, Represented by its Director Achin Aggarwal & Another Versus The Additional Director General, The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-01-2020 HDFC Bank Limited V/S KPG International Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-01-2020 Global Hospitals, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Dr. Ravindranath & Others Versus Mohammed Abdul Aleem @ M.A. Aleem Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
20-12-2019 Global United Shipping India Private Limited, (formerly known as Jalhansa Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.), Represented by its Director, Prem Kumar Menon, Chennai Versus Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Versus Dr. Ambedkar International Center & Others High Court of Delhi
12-12-2019 M/s. Saravana International, Rep. by its Proprietor C.R. Devanathan, Panruti Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panruti High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-12-2019 M/s. KEPCO KDN Co. Ltd., Represented by Its Head India Branch Office & The Authorized Signatory Jongyun Shin Versus M/s. Enzen Global Solution Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore, Represented by Its General Manager, K.B. Sreeju & Another High Court of Kerala
06-12-2019 M/s. N.V. International Versus State of Assam & Others Supreme Court of India
06-12-2019 Tuli International Through it is Partner, Neeraj Tuli Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Sh. A.K. Longai, Manager, Duly Contituted Attorney & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-12-2019 M/s. Fresh & Honest Cafe Limited Rep. by its Manager-Taxation, Rep. by its Manager-Taxatio Versus Deputy Commissioner [CT] & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-11-2019 M/s. Akshayah Global School, Represented by its Founder-Chairman, T.K. Venkatesh Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 Shaji B. John, Kings International Ltd., Quilon & Others Versus The Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary, Dr. G. Santhanakrishnan High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 SPT International & Finance Ltd. Versus Bank of Baroda & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-10-2019 M/s. Usha International Ltd., Represented by its Chief Operating Officer, Haryana Versus Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 Superintending Engineer/ Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (Pw) Slapper & Another Versus Excise & Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar/Assessing Authority Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 M/s. EOS GmbH-India Branch, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Prakasam Anand (Country Manager), Kolathur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Head Legal, Gmr Hyd International Airport Ltd. Versus Registrar, Airports Economic Regulatory Appellate Tribunal 2 High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-10-2019 K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-2019 Global Heritage Venture Ltd. Versus Punjab National Bank & Others High Court of Delhi
15-10-2019 Global United Shipping India (P) Ltd., Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) Mettukuppam Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund), Chennai Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2019 M.L. Kumawat & Another Versus Bharat Bio Tech International Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2019 AREVA T & D India Limited, Rep. by its Director-Treasury & Taxation, L.V. Srinivasan Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-09-2019 Chennai Port Trust Versus Chennai International Terminals Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Ajit Ravi Versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. High Court of Kerala
25-09-2019 Deputy Commissioner & Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus M/s. S.V. Global Mill Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory & Manager, K. Johnson High Court of Karnataka
20-09-2019 International Society for Krishna Consciousness Versus Ishwari Prasad Singh Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-09-2019 Dharam Vir & Others Versus BGS International Public School & Others High Court of Delhi
18-09-2019 The Management of M/s. International Travel House Limited, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2019 M/s. Kadimi International Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited High Court of Delhi
27-08-2019 Central Board of Secondary Education, Application Branch, Shiksha Kendra, Delhi, Represented by its Secretary Versus Manager, Bethlehem International, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
27-08-2019 Yun Zhang & Others Versus Sealegs International Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
19-08-2019 International Flavours & Fragrances India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Office of the Advocate General, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Glencore International AG Versus Indian Potash Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 K. Mahendran, Trincomalee Versus Deutche Welle Radio and TV International, Colombo Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
07-08-2019 San International Business School, Rep.by its Chairman, T. Jayalakshmi Versus The Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institutions, Anna University, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2019 Sphere International, a proprietorship concern through its proprietor Rakesh Jalan Versus Ecopack India Paper Cup Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-08-2019 Global Institute of Fashion Technology (G.I.F.T) Versus Shaista Parveen West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-07-2019 M/s. Kuldip Singh Sethi & Gagan Goyal Versus Ecole Globale International Girls School High Court of Uttarakhand
29-07-2019 Bently Nevada LLC Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) (2), International Taxation & Another High Court of Delhi
26-07-2019 Vedanta Limited Versus Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
23-07-2019 KAS International, Represented by its Proprietor, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Purasawalkam Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-07-2019 Global Hospital & Research Centre Versus Municipal Corporation of Grt. Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-07-2019 ILF Consulting Engineers Almondz Global Infra Consultant Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s Bhagalpur Smart City Ltd, Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna