Archives: Weather

Vodafone supreme court judgment pdf

12.02.2021 | By Kazrami | Filed in: Weather.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD), PATENTS COURT Mr Recorder Douglas Campbell QC [] EWHC (Pat) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL. Date: 19 February Before: LORD JUSTICE LEWISON LADY JUSTICE ASPLIN . Correspondence The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi , FAX: , e-mail: supremecourt[at]nic[dot]in. Landmark Supreme Court verdict in the Vodafone case Background The Supreme Court of India (SC) has rendered its judgment in the much awaited verdict in the US $ 2 billion Vodafone tax case [S.L.P. (C) No. of ]. In one of the most high profile cross border tax litigation involving taxability of a transaction between two non-resident companies (having no presence in India), in relation.

Vodafone supreme court judgment pdf

The site of shares of CGP Shares of CGP were registered in Cayman Island and law of Cayman also does not recognize multiplicity of registers and hence site of shares and transfer of shares is situated in Cayman and shall not shift to India. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MRS. SHAH HON'BLE MR. It is essential that the transaction should have some economic or commercial substance in order to be effective. Hon'ble Judges Judgments between dates Reportable Select HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.The Supreme Court of India pronounced the landmark judgment in Vodafone International Holding (VIH) v. Union of India (UOI). The Bench consisting of Chief Justice S.H Kapadia, K. S. Radha krishnan and Swatanter Kumar quashed the order of High Court of demand of Rs crores as capital gain tax and absolved VIH from liability of payment of Rs crores as capital gain tax in the. The Supreme Court of India after hearing the matter for over two months, has delivered its much awaited landmark page decision, involving taxability of a transaction between two non-resident companies (having no presence in India), in relation to transfer of shares of an overseas company, in favour of Vodafone International BV (VIH) to hold that the transaction is not taxable in India and. However, the Supreme Court noted that Vodafone could approach the High Court if it was ruled against.1 Immediate Facts In an elaborate order dated May 31, , the Rev-enue issued a notice to Vodafone proposing to treat it as a statutory agent of Hutch. In a detailed examina- tion of the transaction documents, the Revenue as-serted that the basic object of this transaction was not merely the. Correspondence The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi , FAX: , e-mail: supremecourt[at]nic[dot]in. For the reasons given in this judgment, I would affirm the conclusion of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the majority of the Court of Appeal that the employment tribunal was entitled to decide b oth questions in the claimants’ favour. The parties: 3. The first appellant, Uber BV, is a Dutch company which owns the rights in the Uber app. The second appellant, Uber London Ltd (“Uber. • The Supreme Court (“SC”) judgement covers 86 appeals, broadly grouped into four categories – Category 1 Indian end users of computer software who purchase the same directly from a foreign non-resident supplier or manufacturer Category 2 Indian distributors / resellers who purchase computer software from non-resident suppliers /manufacturers for the purpose of resale to other resident. Landmark Supreme Court verdict in the Vodafone case Background The Supreme Court of India (SC) has rendered its judgment in the much awaited verdict in the US $ 2 billion Vodafone tax case [S.L.P. (C) No. of ]. In one of the most high profile cross border tax litigation involving taxability of a transaction between two non-resident companies (having no presence in India), in relation. Sub: Update on Supreme Court Judgment on AGR Matter. Ref: Vodafone Idea Limited (the “Company”) (IDEA / ) We write further to our communication dated 18 July on the captioned subject. We wish to inform that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 1 September has, inter-alia, directed that the Telecom Operators shall at the first instance, make the payment of 10%. Analysis of the Vodafone Supreme Court Order In a landmark judgment passed on 20th January , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Justice S. H. Kapadia, Hon'ble Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon'ble Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan vide 2 concurring judgments, set aside the controversial Bombay High Court judgment dated 8th September in File Size: KB. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD), PATENTS COURT Mr Recorder Douglas Campbell QC [] EWHC (Pat) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL. Date: 19 February Before: LORD JUSTICE LEWISON LADY JUSTICE ASPLIN .

See This Video: Vodafone supreme court judgment pdf

IDEA VODAFONE AGR MATTER RESOLVED ! EXPECTATIONS ARE GREEN NOW., time: 2:26
Tags: Johan blohm boogie woogie pdf, South american history pdf, The Supreme Court of India pronounced the landmark judgment in Vodafone International Holding (VIH) v. Union of India (UOI). The Bench consisting of Chief Justice S.H Kapadia, K. S. Radha krishnan and Swatanter Kumar quashed the order of High Court of demand of Rs crores as capital gain tax and absolved VIH from liability of payment of Rs crores as capital gain tax in the. However, the Supreme Court noted that Vodafone could approach the High Court if it was ruled against.1 Immediate Facts In an elaborate order dated May 31, , the Rev-enue issued a notice to Vodafone proposing to treat it as a statutory agent of Hutch. In a detailed examina- tion of the transaction documents, the Revenue as-serted that the basic object of this transaction was not merely the. Analysis of the Vodafone Supreme Court Order In a landmark judgment passed on 20th January , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Justice S. H. Kapadia, Hon'ble Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon'ble Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan vide 2 concurring judgments, set aside the controversial Bombay High Court judgment dated 8th September in File Size: KB. For the reasons given in this judgment, I would affirm the conclusion of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the majority of the Court of Appeal that the employment tribunal was entitled to decide b oth questions in the claimants’ favour. The parties: 3. The first appellant, Uber BV, is a Dutch company which owns the rights in the Uber app. The second appellant, Uber London Ltd (“Uber. The Supreme Court of India after hearing the matter for over two months, has delivered its much awaited landmark page decision, involving taxability of a transaction between two non-resident companies (having no presence in India), in relation to transfer of shares of an overseas company, in favour of Vodafone International BV (VIH) to hold that the transaction is not taxable in India and.Analysis of the Vodafone Supreme Court Order In a landmark judgment passed on 20th January , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Justice S. H. Kapadia, Hon'ble Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon'ble Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan vide 2 concurring judgments, set aside the controversial Bombay High Court judgment dated 8th September in File Size: KB. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD), PATENTS COURT Mr Recorder Douglas Campbell QC [] EWHC (Pat) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL. Date: 19 February Before: LORD JUSTICE LEWISON LADY JUSTICE ASPLIN . The Supreme Court of India pronounced the landmark judgment in Vodafone International Holding (VIH) v. Union of India (UOI). The Bench consisting of Chief Justice S.H Kapadia, K. S. Radha krishnan and Swatanter Kumar quashed the order of High Court of demand of Rs crores as capital gain tax and absolved VIH from liability of payment of Rs crores as capital gain tax in the. • The Supreme Court (“SC”) judgement covers 86 appeals, broadly grouped into four categories – Category 1 Indian end users of computer software who purchase the same directly from a foreign non-resident supplier or manufacturer Category 2 Indian distributors / resellers who purchase computer software from non-resident suppliers /manufacturers for the purpose of resale to other resident. Correspondence The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi , FAX: , e-mail: supremecourt[at]nic[dot]in. Landmark Supreme Court verdict in the Vodafone case Background The Supreme Court of India (SC) has rendered its judgment in the much awaited verdict in the US $ 2 billion Vodafone tax case [S.L.P. (C) No. of ]. In one of the most high profile cross border tax litigation involving taxability of a transaction between two non-resident companies (having no presence in India), in relation. For the reasons given in this judgment, I would affirm the conclusion of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the majority of the Court of Appeal that the employment tribunal was entitled to decide b oth questions in the claimants’ favour. The parties: 3. The first appellant, Uber BV, is a Dutch company which owns the rights in the Uber app. The second appellant, Uber London Ltd (“Uber. However, the Supreme Court noted that Vodafone could approach the High Court if it was ruled against.1 Immediate Facts In an elaborate order dated May 31, , the Rev-enue issued a notice to Vodafone proposing to treat it as a statutory agent of Hutch. In a detailed examina- tion of the transaction documents, the Revenue as-serted that the basic object of this transaction was not merely the. The Supreme Court of India after hearing the matter for over two months, has delivered its much awaited landmark page decision, involving taxability of a transaction between two non-resident companies (having no presence in India), in relation to transfer of shares of an overseas company, in favour of Vodafone International BV (VIH) to hold that the transaction is not taxable in India and. Sub: Update on Supreme Court Judgment on AGR Matter. Ref: Vodafone Idea Limited (the “Company”) (IDEA / ) We write further to our communication dated 18 July on the captioned subject. We wish to inform that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 1 September has, inter-alia, directed that the Telecom Operators shall at the first instance, make the payment of 10%.

See More business ethics article pdf


2 comments on “Vodafone supreme court judgment pdf

  1. Kazrarr says:

    Quite

  2. Mikalar says:

    Matchless phrase ;)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *