Karnataka High Court

Registry cannot insist on NOC from old advocate to appoint new advocate

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd Vs M.Rajashekar (Karnataka High Court)

There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, a party may discharge his advocate any time, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or authorization....

Read More

4% KVAT applicable on Iron and Steel used in construction of building

The State of Karnataka v/s M/s. Sai Sudheer Constructions (High Court of Karnataka)

Iron and Steel purchased by the respondent - assessee and used in the execution of the civil works contracts of the construction of the buildings, remains Iron and Steel as declared goods under the provisions of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and therefore are taxable only at the concessional rate of 4% and not at 13% rate ...

Read More

AO has no jurisdiction to examine constitutional validity of any Act

CIT Vs m/s. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited (Karnataka High Court)

All the appeals are directed against the common order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respect of writ petitions whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has set aside the impugned assessment orders so far as they relate to Privilege Fee as being taxable income....

Read More

PML Act, 2002 Provisions cannot be invoked Retrospectively

M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd Vs Joint Director (Karnataka High Court)

By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, all these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together, as similar questions of law are involved in these writ petitions, in order to avoid a conflicting judicial opinion. We are also informed that facts are, almost, identical....

Read More

High Pitched Assessment: AO/CIT cannot straightaway demand 15% payment

Flipkart India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court)

Undoubtedly, the present case raises the issue of balancing the interest of the Revenue, and the interest of an Needless to say, the Revenue does have the right to realise the assessed incometax amount from the assessee. However, while trying to realise the said amount, the Revenue cannot be permitted, and has not been permitted by the Ci...

Read More

Governor can suspend PSC Member only after reference of matter by President to SC

Dr (Smt) Mangala Sridhar Vs The State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)

The Constitution contemplates various scenarios in which a Governor can exercise his discretion dehors the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, as for example, the powers under Article 174(2): dissolution of legislative assembly; Article 356: advising the President for proclamation of emergency; Article 167: calling for information...

Read More

Trustees cannot be assessed in personal capacity if Beneficiary share is determinable

CIT Vs M/S. India Advantage Fund-VII (Karnataka High Court)

Once the shares of the beneficiaries are found to be determinable, the income is to be taxed of that respective sharer or the beneficiaries in the hands of the beneficiary and not in the hands of the Trustees which has already been shown in the present case....

Read More

Explanation to Section 164 for determination of beneficiary share

CIT Vs India Advantage Fund-VII (Karnataka High Court)

By no interpretative process the explanation to Section 164 of the Act, which is pressed in service can be read for determinability of the shares of the beneficiary with the quantum on the date when the Trust deed is executed and the second reason is that the real test is the determinability of the shares […]...

Read More

Section 14A applicable even if motive of assessee in acquiring shares is to obtain controlling interest in a company

United Breweries Limited vs. DCIT (Karnataka High Court)

The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon various decisions of the High Court and of the Apex Court, but in none of the decisions, the question arisen before the respective Court as to whether the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can be disturbed or upset at the stage of appeal before this Court, which is limited to the qu...

Read More

Section 234E Late TDS return fees invalid for periods prior to 01.06.2015

Sri. Fatheraj Singhvi And Others Vs. UOI And others (Karnataka High Court)

HC held that since before 01.06.2015 section 234E providing for late fee for delay filling of TDS returns was not linked to / not referred under Sec 200A processing of TDS returns. As a result of this the late fee charge was invalid and illegal....

Read More
Page 1 of 1712345...10...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,372)
Company Law (3,255)
Custom Duty (6,436)
DGFT (3,353)
Excise Duty (4,001)
Fema / RBI (3,171)
Finance (3,326)
Income Tax (24,499)
SEBI (2,661)
Service Tax (3,269)

Search Posts by Date

May 2017
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031