We are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
We started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
We and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
We stay up-to-date and periodically share insightful commentary and analysis on the legal issues shaping businesses, both domestically and globally. Our opinionised articles offer fresh perspective on current burning issues, thus keeping you ahead of the curve.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Significant distortions methodology on imports from China as per Article 2(6a) of the EU’s Basic Regulation has been applied in three original anti-dumping investigations. While individual producers/exporters continue to register their participation, there is no opposition/response from China during the investigations to avoid application of significant distortion methodology and as a result, exports from China face the same treatment as that of a non-market economy country.
Question whether the time limit imposed on transitioning the credit into GST from the erstwhile regime is sacrosanct has now been decided by various High Courts and interestingly, not all of them have taken the same view. Recently the Madras High Court has held that the provision imposing time limit is intra vires the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and is mandatory in nature.
The article attempts to explain when the transfer of a business should be treated as a ‘transfer of a going concern, as a whole or an independent part thereof’ which is an exempt supply under GST laws.
The article addresses an issue that may arise regarding the treatment of unclaimed portion of additional depreciation in respect of companies with substantial capital expansion in the relevant AY while opting for Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act relating to reduced corporate taxation scheme.
