Kalebudde Logistics Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Karnataka High Court) When the appeal is pending against the main order, the petitioner could not have filed writ petition for release of goods which are subject matter of appeal. Section 129 and 130 of the Act provides for release of goods on payment of fine. Accordingly, the writ […]...

Sri Deepak Dhanaraj Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court) In this case AO has not whispered about the revised return filed by the assessee except observing that the returns filed by the assessee were invalidated being defective returns. If that being the position, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner under section 139(9) of the Act [&hel...

Tribunal in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of section 254 had rectified the mistake apparent on record and deleted the double addition of income in respect of assessee. Thereafter, Revenue again filed an application under sub-section (2) of section 254 seeking rectification of order passed under sub-section (2) of section 254...

Sri Nayaz Ahmed Vs  State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) State counsel to accept notice for respondents. 2. In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Order, dated 4-2-2019 vide Annexure-C, passed under section 83(1) read with section 5(3) of Karnataka Goods and Services Act of 2017 (hereinafter referred ...

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...