M/s. Kalyani Motors Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) After hearing the learned counsels, this Court is surprised and is pained by the manner in which the authority has passed the impugned reassessment order in the second round of assessement for the period 04.0211 to March 2012 just ignoring the [&...

M/s. Prosper Jewel Arcade LLP Vs The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (High Court Karnataka) The Court further added that “therefore, the larger constitutional questions raised in the present writ petition and as sought to be canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner like the substitution of Entry 54 in List II, eff...

CIT Vs Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru (Karnataka High Court) Protective, precautionary or alternate assessment is an assessment which is made ex- abundanti cautela by the Assessing Authority and is therefore called protective or Precautionary Assessment or alternative assessment. When the Department has any doubt as to the person who is or wil...

Though the Tribunal has no power u/s 254(2) to condone delay in filing the MA, the High Court has power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to do substantial justice by condoning the delay. ...

M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) Issue- Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has power under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to give directions for fresh enquiry into the aspects of the subject matter of appeal filed before it either suo motu or on any grounds […]...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (Karnataka High Court) The ‘Residential Complex’ in question was undertaken to be constructed by the Respondent Assessee M/s. Nithesh Estates Limited for ITC Limited under the Contract dated 01/04/2006. It is equally undisputed before us that the construction act...

M A Zahid Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) In this case First and foremost the petitioner is not accused of committing any non-bailable offence so as to invoke the jurisdiction under section 438 of Cr.P.C. Secondly, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is also without any basis. As could be seen from the above Rules, […]...

PCIT Vs. Softbrands India P. Ltd (Karnataka High Court The existence of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for maintaining an appeal before the High Court. While the appeal to High Court under Section 260-A of the Act may be a First appeal in the sense from the order of final fact […]...

M/s Global Agency Vs General Manger & Ors (Karnataka High Court)  Unless a cause of action arises to the petitioner-assessee by an impugned action notice or order by the Respondents-Department, the academic questions raised by the petitioner-assessee cannot be determined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petiti...

CIT Vs. M/S Mcdowell & Co Ltd Now Known As United Spirits Ltd (Karnataka High Court) In the instant case, as per the scheme he was allowed to retain the sales tax as determined by the competent authority and pay the same 15 years thereafter. The tax collected was deemed to have been paid and, […]...