In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the FIR registered against Income Tax officials as Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 mandates that no suit shall be brought in any civil Court to set aside or modify any proceeding taken or order made under the Act and no prosecution, suit or other proceeding shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government for any act done in good faith under the Act.
Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (TDS) (Karnataka High Court) The facts of the said case would indicate that the provisions made at the end of the accounting year were reversed in the beginning of the next year and no payees were identified including the exact amount of liability. In such circumstances, the Tribunal following […]
Section 57(iii) of the Act does not require that the expenditure incurred is deductible only if expenditure has resulted in actual income. As long as the purpose of incurring expenditure is to earn income, the expenditure would have to be allowed as a deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act.
PCIT Vs Karavali Housing (Karnataka High Court) Section 80IB (10) it is not the mandate of the Section that the housing project must be on a vacant plot of land having minimum area of one acre and that where a new housing project is constructed on a plot of land having minimum area of one […]
Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court) No cenvat credit on outdoor catering service availed by assessee-employer for providing food and beverages in factory canteen Conclusion: Services received by assessee in the capacity of employer for providing food and beverages in the canteen maintained and run in the factory […]
The portion of the observations that are highlighted would reflect on the professional conduct of the petitioner, argues his counsel; learned Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the writ petition contending that the said observations are case specific and therefore petitioner may not read too much in that; so contending he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
PCIT Vs Delhi International (Karnataka High Court) Facts- Assessment orders were passed u/s 143(3) read with 153A, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The AO made certain additions and demanded tax thereon. The said assessment orders were challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), the […]
‘Common Parlance Test, ‘Marketability Test; ‘Popular Meaning Test’ were tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on the proper classification of tariff entry. Therefore, ‘manufactured sand’ would certainly fall under the entry ‘sand’, as it stood during the relevant period. The Notification dated 31.03.2015 was only clarificatory and that would not disentitle assessee to claim the reduced rate of tax at 5/5.5% under Entry 83 of the Third Schedule of the KVAT Act.
Summons issued under section 50(2) of the Act has nothing to do with the regulations as defined under the Regulatory Rules. The rules are referable only to proceedings for adjudication and not to pre-adjudication proceedings. In fact, section 50(2) does not refer to an accused at all.
Delay in filing return was condoned as CBDT, in virtually passing an assessment order on the return of income of assessee had traversed beyond the scope of its power to condone the delay under Section 119(2)(b) and had acted contrary to the provisions of Section 119(2)(b)
