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)
Loss suffered by an assessee on account of foreign exchange difference as on the date of balance sheet was an item of expenditure under Section 37(1) as the view of AO and CIT (A) that the investments were made on, from the FNCR loans was not based on any supporting material and was only a presumption.
High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered against a 47 years old entrepreneur, allegedly involved in illegally selling aadhaar cards as issuance of Aadhaar cards by agencies who were not empowered could also lead to the distribution of cards to neighboring countries which was against the interest of national security. It was prudent for the Government of India or the State Government to have a vigil on such instances of rising cases of frauds in Aadhaar enrollment.
Way2wealth Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court) The circular dated 03.08.2011 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, clarifies that delayed payment charges received by stock brokers are not includible in taxable value as the same are not the charges for providing taxable services. Such charges are […]
