Columbia Sportswear Company vs. DIT (Karnataka High Court)- A liaison office of a foreign company which identifies a manufacturer in India, negotiates the price, helps in choosing raw material to be used, ensures compliance with quality,
The Hon’ble Karnataka HC in the above cited case held that there must be a direct nexus between the material coming to the notice of the Income-Tax Officer and the formation of his belief that income has escaped assessment.
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs The Executive Engineer Court of Karnataka( Kalaburagi Bench) has held that if a person executing the work, purchases the materials from a person other than the customer
Karnataka High Court held In the case of M/s Kothari Metals vs. ITO that in this case it is clear that the assessee was not provided reasons for re-opening and also the statement recorded by the AO was not available to the assessee.
Karnataka High Court held In the case of The CIT & ITO vs. Smt. B S Shanthakumari that the purpose of provisions u/s 54F is to ensure that assessee who received capital gains would invest the same by constructing a residential house and once it is established that consideration so received on transfer
Karnataka High Court held In the case of K.S. Venkatesh vs. DCIT that The Hon’ble Apex Court in T.S.Balaram Vs Volkart Brothers and others reported in 1971 (82) ITR 50 has observed that a mistake apparent on the record must be obvious and patent mistake and not something
The appellant deals in the manufacture and sale of cement. According to the appellant, in the present case, sale of cement was made at the destination of the buyer and hence the appellant would be entitled to CENVAT credit on input service on transportation of the cement sold by the appellant.
Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s TVS Motors Co. Ltd. held that the automobile cess leviable under the automobile cesses rules are governed by the provisions of central excise act and rules made under the act and are in the nature of excise duty and thus, allowable as rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules,2002.
The Hon’ble Karnataka HC in the case of CCE Vs. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd held that reinsurance service is an input service for rendering insurance service because the reinsurance is an integral part of insurance service rendered by the insurance co. and cannot be termed as an activity post completion of insurance services.
Recently, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the matter of K. Madhav Kamath Brother & Co. v. Asst. Comm. of Central Excise, pronounced that even if service tax is paid prior to Show Cause Notice, still the penalty shall be leviable u/s 76/78, 77 of Finance Act’94.
