Cross-border trade plays a vital role in boosting a country’s economic growth. With accelerated globalization, we have observed India emerging as one of the major players in the global supply chain. In the past decade, there has been a substantial rise in cross-border transactions; both in terms of volume and value and this rise has revealed various statutory hurdles in the extant applicable laws governing cross-border trade.
The article discusses the recent circular which is issued by International Finance Services Centres Authority (‘IFSCA’) for imposing an obligation on Authorised FMEs, registered FMEs (Non-Retail) and Registered FMEs (Retail) to maintain a website or a webpage dedicated to their fund management activities in the IFSC.
The article discusses the conceptual foundations of the force of attraction rule, traces its judicial evolution in India, and evaluates the relevance of the doctrine in an era increasingly shaped by source-based taxation and digital nexus rules.
The notification of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 2026 (‘2026 Scheme’) with effect from 1 July 2026, was anticipated to settle and provide clarity on the regulatory framework governing international workers under the Code on Social Security, 2020. However, it has done the opposite in one respect. The 2026 Scheme retains a dedicated framework for international workers and carries forward the substance of the erstwhile Paragraph 83 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 (‘1952 Scheme’) and Paragraph 43A of the EPS, 1995.
Sub-section (1H) introduced in Section 206 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2020, seeks to extend the ambit of Tax Collection at Source (‘TCS’) to consideration received from sale of goods. The article seeks to address certain practical issues that would be faced by tax payers in following the law effective from 1-10-2020. It discusses that the meaning of ‘goods’ must be derived from the Sale of Goods Act and not from…
The article notes that many countries with which India has SSAs have clarified that the work from home scenarios arising out of COVID-19 would not be considered for determining the eligibility of payment of social security obligations, but in the absence of any clarification from Employees Provident Fund Organisation, there exists an ambiguity on the status of foreign workers who are currently working remotely from their home country…
In this case [Stempeutics Research Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs ], the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) adjudicated patentability with respect to inventive step under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘Act’). The IPAB also addressed the issue of submission of proof of right under Section 7(2) of the Act.
the IPR team in Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan+113 Sept 2020
In the present case [Mandom Corp v. Fem Care Pharma Limited & Ors. ], the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”) examined one aspect of the often ambiguous issue in trademark law of prior use versus prior registration. It also clarified certain procedural law principles like res judicata, locus standi, and burden of proof.
In the present case [Red Bull AG v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited & Ors. ], the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”), determined whether a registered trademark of a sub-brand, if not in use, can be removed from the trademark register on the request of a non-aggrieved party.
The lesser duty rule may be suspended by the EU if there are distortions of raw materials price. Moreover, as per Article 7(2a), the lesser duty rule can only be suspended when a single raw material for which distortion is found accounts for not less than 17% of the cost of production of the product concerned. After these requirements of Article 7(2a) are met, it still has to go through the rigours of the Union interest test.
The Competition Commission of India’s (“CCI”) regular functioning continues to stand suspended amid the COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020. The Indian antitrust regulator however was quick to adapt to the changed circumstances and adopted a modus operandi which allowed for parties to submit merger notifications as well as responses in on-going investigations and new informations online.
The article elaborately discusses the thin line which a payment needs to cross in order to become a consideration. Discussing the definitions of ‘consideration’ under GST law and Indian Contract Act, 1872, the article states that payment should have a direct and sufficient nexus with the supply and be at the desire of the promisor.
The article discusses at length the issue as to whether an intermediary suppling service to a foreign customer should discharge CGST+SGST or IGST. The authors are of the view that in such case, the transaction would be covered under Section 13(8)(c) and be deemed as inter-State supply as per Section 7(5)(c). They also state that the Gujarat High Court’s observation in the case of Material Recycling Association of India, that CGST+SGST would be liable in such case, is a mere obiter dicta.
Doctrine of Merger is not applicable in all scenarios and to all the orders passed under the Income Tax Act. The Courts have been playing a vital role by applying this doctrine on case to case basis to determine whether or not the powers under Section 263 and 154 have been exercised within the time limits prescribed and also in certain cases to determine if the appeals have been filed within the condonable period.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Om Balajee Automobile (India) Private Limited granted an ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff and restrained the defendants, from manufacturing, exporting, importing or offering for sale, advertising or in any manner dealing with goods, not limited to e-rickshaws, bearing the mark “DMW” or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “BMW” trademarks.
The article discusses at length the recently released draft Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Amendment Rules, 2020. According to the authors, the Draft Rules are a ray of hope in regulating implementation agencies and ensuring a greater transparency by formulating the registration process.
The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on 'ACCEPT', the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy.