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.
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 […]
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 […]
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.
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 […]
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.
Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure.
PCIT Vs Dr. Ranjan Pai (Karnataka High Court) The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is ‘as to whether the fair market value of bonus shares computed as per Rule 11U and Rule 11U A of the Income Tax Rules can be considered as income from other sources as per Section 56(2)(vii) of […]
PCIT Vs Dr. Ranjan Pai (Karnataka High Court) The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is ‘as to whether the fair market value of bonus shares computed as per Rule 11U and Rule 11U A of the Income Tax Rules can be considered as income from other sources as per Section 56(2)(vii) of […]
Katta Subramaniam Naidu Vs Deputy Director (Karnataka High Court) In this batch of petitions, petitioners have questioned the correctness and legality of the proceedings initiated against them under sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PML Act’). 2. The common grievance of the petitioners is that they […]
