Karnataka High Court ruled that rejecting a compassionate appointment solely because applicant is a married daughter is discriminatory. Court held that marital status is not a valid ground for exclusion under Article 14. It directed Bank to reconsider case based on actual dependency and financial hardship.
Karnataka High Court set aside a FEMA show-cause notice and complaint issued after Section 6(3)(b) of Act was omitted by Finance Act, 2015. Court ruled that proceedings based on a non-existent provision are void ab initio. It reaffirmed that, without a saving clause, authorities lack jurisdiction to act under an omitted section.
Karnataka High Court directed that no coercive measures be taken against borrowers until their recall plea is decided by DRT. Court emphasized that issues of improper service of notice must be adjudicated before recovery is enforced. The ruling safeguards borrowers’ right to be heard in debt recovery proceedings.
Karnataka High Court held that Enforcement Directorate cannot attach assets mortgaged to banks under SARFAESI Act. Court found that such properties, acquired through lawful bank loans, are not proceeds of crime. It reaffirmed that secured creditors’ recovery rights under SARFAESI override PMLA proceedings where the bank is a victim, not a beneficiary.
Mens rea was not essential for penalty under Section 117, revocation of the courier license was unwarranted; penalties under both Section 117 of the Customs Act and Regulation 14 of the 2010 Regulations were validly imposed.
Karnataka High Court quashed reassessment notices and orders for AY 2020-21, ruling they were issued without proper statutory jurisdiction under the framework of Section 151A. The ruling reinforces that procedural non-compliance in the faceless scheme voids the notices, while granting Revenue liberty to revive the case post-Supreme Court verdict.
The High Court allowed the petition, ruling that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction because they contravened the procedural requirements of Sec. 151A of the Income Tax Act. This key takeaway reiterates the requirement for strict procedural adherence in the faceless regime, while preserving the Revenues right to revive the case post-Apex Court clarity.
The High Court found no mistake apparent on record to warrant rectification under Section 254, holding that the Tribunal’s decision to uphold the Section 80JJA deduction was neither perverse nor erroneous. The ruling clarifies that Section 254 cannot be used to re-argue the quantum or correctness of a deduction, especially one accepted historically.
Karnataka High Court affirmed the ITATs decision, ruling that 81 appellate orders passed by the CIT(A)-11 after the DGIT (Investigation) had explicitly directed him not to pass further orders were without jurisdiction. The key takeaway is that such orders, passed in defiance of supervisory administrative restraint, are illegal and must be reheard de novo by a competent authority.
Karnataka High Court quashed reassessment notices issued beyond four years, finding AO had full knowledge of AE payments during original Section 143(3) scrutiny. Key takeaway is that re-examining previously disclosed facts or material known through TPO proceedings constitutes a mere change of opinion, which is invalid under Section 147.
