The Income Tax Department is also directed to consider the provisioning of a facility in its software to upload Income Tax Returns with the actual amount paid and for the system to accept the said returns even though the complete amounts had not been paid.
Zeenath Transport Company Vs Principal Additional Director General (Karnataka High Court) The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of Section 174 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is ultra virus the constitutional (101st) Amendment Act 2016 being violative of Article 14/19/265 of the Constitutional of India and also sought for quashing the show cause […]
The Hon’ble High Court concluded that order passed by JCCT Appeals cannot be said erroneous. Also concluded that the position adopted by ADC is not in line with KVAT Laws where the order passed by ADC was based on assumption that the benefit of refund of tax paid on purchase of Inputs can be granted only in respect of manufacture and processing of goods which is not at all prescribed under the law. Accordingly, there is no justification on the part of ADC in invoking revisional power u/s 64 (1) of the KVAT Act.
Since complainant was neither Registrar of companies nor a shareholder of the company or a person authorized by the Central Government to file the complaint, therefore, the complaint was dismissed as no other person can initiate any criminal proceeding against a company for the offence committed under the Act of 2013 .
Whether, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of IPO inter alia stamp duty is an allowable expenditure under section 35D of the I.T. Act
PCIT Vs Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Facts: 1. Taxpayer, a captive software development and support service provider, is subsidiary of Novell Inc US. The taxpayer provided software development and support services to its US Associated Enterprise and adopted Transactional Net Margin Method. 2. The taxpayer was providing depreciation as per […]
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, […]
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.
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 […]
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 […]
