Ramachandra Reddy Vs DCIT: The Karnataka High Court quashes reassessment notices issued by jurisdictional AOs, holding that after the March 29, 2022 notification, all such proceedings must be conducted via the mandatory faceless regime under Section 151A.
Karnataka High Court rules in favor of JSW Steel, stating the denial of a cross-examination opportunity for third-party witnesses in a GST adjudication violates natural justice principles.
In a pragmatic ruling, the Karnataka High Court has allowed B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy to use a portion of the revenue from his attached windmills to cover maintenance costs, ensuring the assets remain operational to maximize tax recovery for the Income Tax Department.
Karnataka High Court has ruled that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid, following a Supreme Court precedent.
Karnataka High Court dismisses SBI’s appeal, upholding TDS demand for foreign travel LTC claims. The court cites a Supreme Court precedent that denies tax exemption for journeys with a foreign leg.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by the Income Tax Department, ruling that payments to Syna Media for software licenses are not taxable as royalty, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in the Engineering Analysis case.
Participation of a person practicing a particular faith or religion, in celebrations of festivals of other religion did not offend the rights available under Constitution of India. Assessee had argued that it would not be appropriate for Banu to participate in Hindu religious rituals, including lighting of a sacred lamp, offering fruits and flowers to the deity and chanting Vedic prayers. Such practices can only be performed by a Hindu, they argued.
Karnataka High Court held that in terms of section 142(7)(b) and 142(8)(b) of the KGST Act all types of amounts refundable are to be refunded back in cash without there being any distinction between cash deposit or ITC/ECL deposit. Accordingly, 70% pre-deposit made through ITC/ECL is to be refunded in cash.
The petitioner has a division “Pearson Vue” which is engaged in providing computer based test administration solutions and pursuant to its contract with GMAC, USA, the petitioner conduct GMAT on behalf of GMAC for candidates in India.
Karnataka High Court held that any officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner cannot by himself inspect the premises of any taxable person without authorization from the Joint Commissioner in term of section 67 of the CGST Act.
