N.M.D.C. Vs Authority For Advance Ruling (Karnataka High Court) It is provided categorically under the CGST Act that no delay can be condoned after expiry of 30 + 30 days period. No such contingency was involved in the aforesaid case. Not only this, the doctrine of merger is not applicable in the facts and circumstances […]
State Of Karnataka Vs Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) The prescribed authority in order dated 31.03.2016 accepted the books of accounts in entirety, which was produced by the respondent. The prescribed authority before passing the order dated 31.03.2016 has not conducted any independent enquiry and has not noted any other material which […]
Asiatic Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) HC held that Taking note that an opportunity of personal hearing was not availed, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to substantiate the detailed replies made, as per the acknowledgements […]
Based on the above, the Hon’ble Court held that the assessee is entitled to set-off the brought forward business loss against income which has the attributes of business income even though the same is assessable to tax under a head other than profits and gains from business.
CIT Vs Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: Loss sustained by assessee due to fluctuation in foreign exchange while implementing export contract was incidental to assessee’s course of business, therefore, such a loss was not a speculative loss but a business loss. Held: Assessee had entered into forward contract with the bank […]
B V Harish Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) In this case Karnataka High Court quashed and set aside a criminal case registered against founders of Bitcoin company, Unocoin for setting up a Bitcoin ATM in Bengaluru in 2018 as the case has been registered against the petitioners based on the Circular dated 06.04.2018 […]
From perusal of the order passed by the authorities, it is evident that the authorities have accepted the books of accounts produced by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in its order, has admitted that the payment of speed money is a trade practice which is followed by the assessee and similar business concerns functioning for speedy completion of their work.
Rule 4(a) of the Re-Export Of Imported Goods (Drawback Of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 provides for exemption or waiver of the requirement physical verification and cannot form the sole basis for rejection of the claim for drawback of duty under Section 74 of the Act.
By no stretch of imagination Form VAT 240 can be treated as a returns for the purposes of claiming input tax credit, especially in the light of the fact that filing of returns to compute the net tax liability has to take place keeping in view Section 10(3) and 10(4) of the KVAT Act.
Respondent is engaged in providing services with regard to maintenance and repair of computer software. Vide Notification dated 21.08.2003, the maintenance services related to computers, computer systems or computer peripherals were exempt from payment of service tax.
