Contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the Act vests the power in the respondents to take measures for recovery of tax, interest & the penalties that have fallen due does not come to the rescue of the Revenue; existence of power is one thing and its exercise is another; the existence per se does not justify the exercise; no case is made out for excluding an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee before making the impugned order.
CIT Vs Kishan House Builders Association (Karnataka High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the sale of land which is held as investment is considered as capital gains or business income? High Court states that, from perusal of the entries it is evident that the assessee has not conducted any other activity other than […]
No deduction shall be allowed in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation of the income which does not form part of his total income under the Act. As assessee had not incurred any expenditure in relation to dividend income, therefore, no dis allowance could be made under section 14A.
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 substance for a prayer that they are entitled to seek deduction in respect of their income in terms of the scheme envisaged under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , on the premises that they too are a Cooperative Society, on par with those registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
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 that their claim under […]
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 issued by the […]
It has also been held that the appellant has deliberately created an artificial and colourable devise for reducing its income offered for taxation through an arrangement of letter of credit and thus, the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of interest paid to the bank and also to its creditors are not allowable.
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 generating electricity […]
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.
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 […]
