Karnataka High Court

Area declared as backward for section 80HH cannot be deemed as backward for Section 80IA

CIT Vs Endeka Ceramics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court)

CIT Vs Endeka Ceramics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Admittedly in the instant case, the industrial undertaking of the appellant-assessee is not located in the Industrial Backward District, which has been mentioned in the Notification issued by the Central Government. It is pertinent to note here that the first Notification was...

Read More

HC directs dept to consider petitioners claim for benefit under SVDLRS under Arrears Category

Ramesh Electricals Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court)

Ramesh Electricals Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Petitioners are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, in substance for a direction to the respondents to permit them to avail the benefit in the ‘Arrears Category’ of SAB KA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) Scheme 2019. The apprehension of the petitioners t...

Read More

Entities registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 fit into definition of co-operative society

Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co Operative Ltd Vs Government of India (Karnataka High Court)

Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co Operative Ltd Vs Government of India (Karnataka High Court) Petitioner  is a Credit Cooperative, registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997; petitioner is registered as the State Federal Cooperative, as provided under Section 33 of the said Act; they have knocked at the doors of writ court in...

Read More

Sum received by father for transfer of mining lease right | Deemed dividend | Section 2(22)(e)

CIT Vs Basant Poddar (Karnataka High Court)

It was held that Amount received by assessee from his father out of  sum received by father for transfer of mining lease right to a Company in which assessee was shareholder cannot be treated as deemed dividend income of the assessee under section 2(22)(e) as sum was not received on behalf of Assessee and it was for a commercial transact...

Read More

ITC cannot be claimed by mere filing of VAT Form 240 without filing of return

MFAR Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)

MFAR Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Return is the basis on which the computation of tax liability has to be made including the input tax credit in terms of Section 10[3] and Section 10[4] of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is not in dispute that no […]...

Read More

Tax on consumption of Electricity by person generating electricity is valid: HC

Harekrishna Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)

Harekrishna Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) Section 4[3] of the Karnataka Electricity [Taxation on Consumption] [Amendment] Act, 2013 deals with the payment of tax. In terms of sub-section [3] of Section 4, the incidence of tax is on the consumption. The consumption of electricity relates to every person g...

Read More

Revision of declaration in FORM GST TRAN- 1 can be made once: HC

Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court)

Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) The Rule 120A provides for revision of declaration. In the event of the registered person who had submitted a declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1, intends to revise such declaration once, this provision can be invoked. This provision makes it clear that ...

Read More

Show cause notice is sine qua non to proceed with recovery under GST

LC Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court)

LC Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Section 73 of the Chapter XV of the Act – contemplates that where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised […]...

Read More

Karnataka HC explains disqualification of directors | Section 164(2)

Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India (Karnataka High Court)

Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India (Karnataka High Court) (a) It is held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The said provision is not manifestly arbitrary and also does not fall within the scope of the doctrine of proportionality. Neither does the said provision violate Article […...

Read More

Financial stringency not justify non-remittance of TDS – Penalty Justified

KBR Infratch Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Karnataka High Court)

Financial stringency would not justify the non-remittance of TDS to the Government, in as much as, it would amount to utilization of money payable to the appropriate government. As such, by extending its benevolence....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,556)
Company Law (5,609)
Custom Duty (7,678)
DGFT (4,170)
Excise Duty (4,342)
Fema / RBI (4,062)
Finance (4,213)
Income Tax (32,428)
SEBI (3,366)
Service Tax (3,541)