Follow Us :

Karnataka High Court

Duty free import against License- Nexus with export product not required

January 13, 2021 2157 Views 0 comment Print

Commissioner of Customs Vs Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: Imported material could be disposed of or utilized in any manner including local sale once the export obligations were fulfilled and the only requirement as per condition No.(vii) was that such inputs should not be sold or transferred in the market. In other words, […]

Limitation period for commencement of arbitration runs from the date cause of action would have accrued

January 8, 2021 5283 Views 0 comment Print

ust as in the case of civil actions the claim was not to be brought after the expiration of a specified number of years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, so in the case of arbitrations, the claim was not to be put forward after the expiration of the specified number of years from the date when the claim accrued. The period of limitation for making claims by BBMP by way of a suit or arbitration was six years from the date when the cause of action arose.

HC explains jurisdiction to try offences for E-commerce transactions

January 7, 2021 3747 Views 0 comment Print

Kunal Bahl Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) In E-commerce transactions the jurisdiction to try offences will lie with a Court where the accused has its Head Office, Branch Office or other offices. 1. The order of Cognisance dated 8.6.2020 is not in compliance with the requirement of Section 191(1)( a) of the Cr.P.C […]

Clause (vii) of Notification No. 30/97-Customs cannot be read in isolation

January 6, 2021 666 Views 0 comment Print

Commissioner Of Customs Vs Motorola India Limited (Karnataka High Court) The tribunal on the basis of advance licences issued to the respondent and the standard input output norms has recorded a finding that the respondent was allowed to import 2% in excess to provide for the wastage. It is also pertinent to mention here that […]

Genuine hardship must be considered before condoning delay: HC remands matter back to PCIT

January 4, 2021 3201 Views 0 comment Print

On the aspect of delay, genuine hardship would have to be considered before condoning the delay and discretion has to be exercised in genuine cases of hardship and accordingly, exercising his discretion, learned single Judge held that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns has to be reconsidered.

Section 14A provisions cannot be imported into MAT provisions

January 4, 2021 3036 Views 0 comment Print

Sobha Developers Ltd. Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) From perusal of the relevant extract of Section 115JB, it is evident that Sub-Section (1) of Section 115JB provides the mode of computation of the total income of the assessee and tax payable on the assessee under Section 115JB of the Act. Sub-Section (5) of Section 115JB […]

Expression ‘for use’ means intended for use: HC

December 22, 2020 2112 Views 0 comment Print

Ratnagiri Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Karnataka High Court) The Supreme Court in Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. supra while considering the expression ‘for use’ in Section 5(2)(a)(v) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act held that the aforesaid expression means intended for use. It was further held that inability to prove the actual […]

Issue appropriate Discharge Certificate under SVLDR Scheme: HC

December 21, 2020 873 Views 0 comment Print

The SVLDR Scheme contemplates ‘Tax Relief’ as detailed in Section 124: Section 124(2) stipulates that the ‘Tax Relief’’ shall be calculated subject to the condition that any deposit during enquiry or investigation or audit shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by a declarant and subject to the condition that if the amount so paid exceeds the amount payable by the declarant as indicated in the statement, the declarant shall not be entitled to any relief.

Proper Officer can possess Confiscated Goods if taxpayer opts not to pay tax payable, penalty & other charges

December 21, 2020 1617 Views 0 comment Print

M.S. Meghdoot Logistics Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Karnataka High Court) Proper Officer was empowered to possess Confiscated Goods if option to pay Fine in addition to the tax payable, penalty and other charges was not exercised Conclusion: Where proper officer, who had detained the conveyance and seized the goods was able to form opinion that […]

Section 40(a)(ia) not applies in respect of a claim for depreciation

December 16, 2020 11721 Views 0 comment Print

From close scrutiny of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, it is axiomatic that an amount payable towards interest, royalty, fee for technical services or other sums chargeable under this Act shall not be deducted while computing the income under the head profit and gain of business or profession on which tax is deductible at source; but such tax has not been deducted.

Search Post by Date
March 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031