Zeenath Transport Company Vs Principal Additional Director General (Karnataka High Court) The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of Section 174 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is ultra virus the constitutional (101st) Amendment Act 2016 being violative of Article 14/19/265 of the Constitutional of India and als...

Ganesh Shipping Agency Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) From perusal of the order passed by the authorities, it is evident that the authorities have accepted the books of accounts produced by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in its order, has admitted that the payment of speed money is a trade practice which is followed by […]...

PCIT Vs Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) From close scrutiny of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, it is axiomatic that an amount payable towards interest, royalty, fee for technical services or other sums chargeable under this Act shall not be deducted while computing the income under the head profit and gain of business [&hell...

Principal Commissioner Of Service Tax Vs IBM India Pvt. Limited (High Court of Karnataka) Respondent is engaged in providing services with regard to maintenance and repair of computer software. Vide Notification dated 21.08.2003, the maintenance services related to computers, computer systems or computer peripherals were exempt from payme...

Commissioner of Customs Vs Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: Imported material could be disposed of or utilized in any manner including local sale once the export obligations were fulfilled and the only requirement as per condition No.(vii) was that such inputs should not be sold or transferred in the market. In o...

The Income Tax Department is also directed to consider the provisioning of a facility in its software to upload Income Tax Returns with the actual amount paid and for the system to accept the said returns even though the complete amounts had not been paid....

The Hon’ble High Court concluded that order passed by JCCT Appeals cannot be said erroneous. Also concluded that the position adopted by ADC is not in line with KVAT Laws  where the order passed by ADC was based on assumption that the benefit of refund of tax paid on purchase of Inputs can be granted only in respect of manufacture and ...

Since complainant was neither Registrar of companies nor a shareholder of the company or a person authorized by the Central Government to file the complaint, therefore, the complaint  was dismissed as no other person can initiate any criminal proceeding against a company for the offence committed under the Act of 2013 ....

Commissioner Of Customs Vs Motorola India Limited (Karnataka High Court) The tribunal on the basis of advance licences issued to the respondent and the standard input output norms has recorded a finding that the respondent was allowed to import 2% in excess to provide for the wastage. It is also pertinent to mention here that […]...

CIT Vs Onmobile Gobal Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of IPO inter alia stamp duty is an allowable expenditure under section 35D of the I.T. Act despite the ruling of Apex Court in the case of General Insurance […]...