CIT Vs Vijaya Bank (Karnataka High Court) Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that prior to amendment with effect from 01.04.2008, benefit of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act was not available to a Banking Company and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. It is further submitted […]
Where assessee did not produce any material, despite opportunity being afforded to show that the amount seized during the search, did not belong to it but belonged to some other person as claimed by it; the addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of cash seized during the search would be sustainable.
Urbanize Developers India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) 1. The petitioner, a private limited company which is registered with GST Authorities with the State of Karnataka, has filed this writ petition for a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, GSTLVO-60 [the respondent] to consider the petitioner’s representations […]
SEBI Vs Franklin Templeton Trustees Services Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court) i) We hold that no interference is called for in the decision of the Trustees taken on 23rd April 2020 of winding up the said six Schemes; ii) We hold and declare that the decision of the Trustees (the Franklin Templeton Trustee Services private […]
Bagmane Developers Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) The Hon’ble HC, Karnataka in Bagmane Developers v. Union of India [W.P. No. 9430/2020 dated October 22, 2020] stayed demand of Rs. 62 crore in a writ petition challenging credit restriction under Section 17(5)(c) and (d) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) […]
The issue under consideration is whether Commercial Tax Officer is correct in initiating proceedings under section 129 for detaining vehicles, imposing tax, penalty, and interest?
CBI (Anti-Corruption Branch) Vs Sh. Jose Alexander (Karnataka High Court) Petitioner was a party to the criminal appeal filed by accused No. 3 before the Supreme Court. In the absence of the copies of pleadings in the said case, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not raise this issue of applicability of Section […]
The provisions of Proviso to Rule 92[3] stipulate a right to be heard; and in the present case, this right, as accepted by the learned Additional Government Advocate, is not extended to the petitioner. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed on this short ground, and the case remanded for re- consideration.
The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the conditions of Rule 18DA(8A) can be looked into only by the prescribed authority and not by the Assessing Officer?
The issue under consideration is whether Third Party Administrator (TPA) is required to deduct tax at source (TDS) on payments made to hospitals under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act?
