Abrar Kazi Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence. The match fixing may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption […]
It is trite that the deficiencies in the investigation or incorrect demand in the first show cause notice cannot be made good in the second show cause notice and subsequent show cause notice alleging suppression of facts again is not reasonable since repeated issuance of notices would result in revisiting the concluded proceedings and reopening of the proceedings at any point of time.
G. Satish Kumar Vs PCIT (Karnataka High Court) Petitioner has specifically stated that his wife is suffering from liver and brain tumor and was undergoing treatment and consequently, pursuant to the notice dated 09.09.2021 passed under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and requested granting of 30 days time […]
Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Toyota Kirloskar Motors (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: Since Toyota was an output service provider therefore, it can utilise cenvat credit for payment of service tax on output services. Held: The respondent – M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors claimed to be manufactures of Multiutility Vehicles (MUV) for passenger cars and parts thereof […]
Union of India Vs Asaid Paints Limited (Karnataka High Court) on a careful consideration of the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel and learned counsel for respondents in light of the order impugned, we find that the learned single Judge has been persuaded by the judgment passed in Adfert Technologies in coming to the […]
The petitioner is permitted to file once again rectified TRAN-I Form electronically or manually within a period of 30 days from today; pursuant to the petitioner filing the said form, respondents would consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
V.S. Products Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Legality of levy of NCCD as per Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 As per Section 136 of the Finance Act, a surcharge by way of duty of excise at the rates specified in the schedule is levied. By virtue of the amendment of the […]
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.
