Assessment or re-assessment made in pursuance to Section 153A of the IT Act, is not a de novo assessment and therefore, it was not open to the Appellant to claim and be allowed deduction or allowance of expenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment proceedings which in the case of the Appellant stood completed....

The Petitioner filed petition against the order dated May 24, 2017 (Order) by the passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal denying the input tax credit (ITC) in respect of capital goods and imposing penalty stating that penal provisions are mandatory....

Novel Security Services Vs Additional Director (Karnataka High Court) In the present case, it is seen that every attempt made by the respondent to secure information/document from the appeal were stonewalled by the appellant. Though the show cause notice issued by the respondent which was impugned before the learned Single Judge was not p...

HC has quashed a notice and blocking of input tax credit under rule 86A whereby the credit was blocked for more than one year. Rule 86A does not empower the department to block the credit for more than one year and they are bound to unblock it even if the assessment has not taken place or got completed within one year....

Competition Commission of India had allowed to investigate against Flipkart and Amazon for alleged involvement in Anti-competitive Agreements. An order directing investigation be supported by 'some reasoning' (CCI Vs. SAIL para 97), which the Commission had fulfilled. Therefore, it would be unwise to prejudge the issues raised by Amazon a...

Based on the above, the Hon’ble Court held that the assessee is entitled to set-off the brought forward business loss against income which has the attributes of business income even though the same is assessable to tax under a head other than profits and gains from business....

Provisions of the IBC was having overriding effect over other laws and the same would prevail in view of Section 238 of the Code. Hence, the proceedings initiated against assessee under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2004 was quashed....

Bangalore Turf Club Limited and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) Horse race clubs liable to pay GST only on commission and not entire bet amount; Rule 31A(3) of CGST Rules ultra vires The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (HC) in Bangalore Turf Club Limited and ors. v. Union of India [WP No. 11168/2018 and WP […]...

The Commissioner of Central GST Vs Adhikari Engineering (Karnataka High Court) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued before this Court that the monetary limit involved is less than Rs.1 crore and in the light of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 22.08.2019, the appeal itself [&...

Neither Section 194-C nor 194-I of the Act would be applicable to the lease financing of motor vehicles; thus there could have been no disallowance on the ground that there was no tax deduction at source made by the Assessee....