Karnataka High Court

Section 281B order ceased to have effect after expiry of six months from the date of assessment order

Duo Meadows (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)

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...

Read More

AO has a legal obligation to implement order of ITAT strictly: HC

Lokesh Chandrappa Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)

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 […]...

Read More

Anonymous donation towards construction of building eligible for Section 11 exemption

CIT Vs. MBA Nahata Charitable Trust (Karnataka High Court)

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 ...

Read More

Mere delay in TDS deposit in time is offense sufficient to attract Section 276B

Golden Gate Properties Ltd Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court)

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 […]...

Read More

Section 54F Unutilized capital gain taxable as income u/s 45 after 3 Years

Prof. P.N. Shetty Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)

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....

Read More

HC grants Anticipatory bail against arrest under GST for alleged bogus billing

Mr. Mahendra Kumar Singhi Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)

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...

Read More

Fake GST invoices: Circumstances under which bail can be granted

B. Banu Bee Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)

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 ...

Read More

SARFAESI: Only secured creditors can initiate action against borrower

Trishul Developers Vs L & T Housing Finance Limited (Karnataka High Court)

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....

Read More

HC quashed reassessment notice u/s 148 against Infosys Ltd.

Infosys limited Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court)

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....

Read More

ITC Benefits cannot be denied to purchaser merely for subsequent de-registration of selling dealers

M/s Onyx Designs Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)

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...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,289)
Company Law (5,005)
Custom Duty (7,381)
DGFT (3,997)
Excise Duty (4,257)
Fema / RBI (3,832)
Finance (4,009)
Income Tax (30,755)
SEBI (3,191)
Service Tax (3,470)