Delve into the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on the extended limitation period for ITC refund claims, where the case of Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd. Vs Union of India was examined.
Karnataka High Court directed the State and Government Agencies to calculate ‘tax difference’ on balance works executed or to be executed after 01.07.2017. In nut-shell, court directed to determine the pre-GST and post-GST tax difference in case of works contract.
Karnataka High Court held that exemption to an education institution with regard to payment of property tax is provided under section 94(1-A)(i) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the said exemption is absolute.
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the writ petition seeking a declaration that Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 is unconstitutional. Petitioner granted liberty to challenge the respondent’s order in separate proceedings.
Karnataka High Court rules Section 234E demands for late TDS returns prior to 01-06-2015 as invalid, impacting implications for income tax proceedings under IBC. The question of constitutional validity of Section 234E remains open for future consideration.
Karnataka High Court held that notice issued in the name of non-existing entity as on the date of issuance of notice is liable to be set aside
Karnataka High Court set aside the endorsement and directed the authority to reconsider the application under Karasamadhana Scheme
Karnataka High Court provided directions/ guidelines for calculation of tax difference on contract value in respect of works contracts executed prior to 01.07.2017 under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and completed after introduction of GST i.e. after 01.07.2017
Karnataka HC Suspends Recovery in Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha Vs CIT (Exemptions) Due to Cryptic Stay Order assigning absolutely no reasons
Sanath Kumar Murali Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court) Petitioner challenged the order u/s 148A(d) for AY 2016-2017 & sought for quashing 148 notice before the Karnataka High Court. Notice u/s 148A(b) was issued to the petitioner stating that information was received which suggested that income chargeable to tax for the AY has escaped assessment within […]
