The order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 281B of the Act has been ceased to have effect after the expiry of six months from the date of the order of the assessment. Hence, the  apprehension  of the petitioner regarding the enforcement of the provisional attachment further would not arise and the same can be allayed with a...

Lokesh Chandrappa Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court) It is trite law that the Assessing Officer has a legal obligation to implement the order of the ITAT strictly and such failure would result in the failure of justice. A writ of mandamus would be issued in such circumstances to the respondent – Assessing Officer to carry […]...

CIT Vs. MBA Nahata Charitable Trust (Karnataka High Court)  The records clearly disclose that the assessee is a Charitable Trust duly registered under Section 12A of the Act. For the assessment yetirs referred to above, the assessee had filed return of income shoving receipt of donations towards the building fund. Originally, the return ...

Golden Gate Properties Ltd Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) Section 278AA makes it clear that in order to get over the penal consequences that follow on account of non-payment of tax deducted at source, it is open for the accused persons to come clean of the said charge by showing reasonable cause for failure to […]...

Unutilized capital gain amount under Section 54 F[4] had to be charged under Section 45 as income of the previous year, after the expiry of three years from the date of sale of the capital asset as per proviso appended to Section 54F[4] and withdrawal of amount was permitted subject to deduction of tax....

Mr. Mahendra Kumar Singhi Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Though several contentions have been raised with reference to initiation of the action under the GST Act and CST Act, since the scope of these petitions is limited only to consider the bail applications, the other points which have been raised are not [&h...

B. Banu Bee Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) This Court in the case of Sri. Avainash Aradhya Vs. the Commissioner of Central Tax in Criminal Petititon No.497/2019 c/w Criminal Petition No.498/2019 by order dated 18.2.2019 has elaborately discussed the provisions of law and other aspects as to under what circumstances the bail ...

SARFAESI Act provides only secured creditors to initiate action against the borrower and a demand made by a person or legal entity who was not the secured creditor was definitely prejudicial to the interest of assessee....

Reopening of assessment on basis of withdrawal of deduction allowed under Section 10A relating to the assessment year 2007-08 was without application of mind and nothing but the change of opinion, which tantamounted to review and the same was not permissible to initiate the proceedings under Section 147/148....

M/s Onyx Designs Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: In absence of any other allegations made against the purchasing dealer in the assessment orders, merely for the reason that selling dealers had not deposited the collected tax amount or some of the selling dealers had been subsequently de...