Sri Nanjundaiah Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Sri Nanjundaiah (Petitioner), the founder of Kanva Souhardha Co-operative Credit Limited (Society) has filed the Bail Application in Special Criminal Case No.846/2020 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (Respondent) for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). […]
Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd Vs Competition Commission of India (Karnataka High Court) In the considered opinion of this Court, the CCI certainly have a jurisdiction to take appropriate steps to curb the anti competitive practices and a detailed mechanism is provided under the Act itself to ensure that no anti competitive practices are undertaken. The […]
More Retail Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) In these bunch of petitions, petitioners have sought for direction to the respondents to effect the change of name of the petitioners Company i.e. M/s More Retail Limited to M/s More Retail Private Limited in excise license Form CL-2 issued by the Government of […]
Trimm Exports Private Limited Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether an amount of Rs.1 Crore paid as compensation by the appellant to the lessee can be claimed as expenses incurred in connection with transfer of the capital asset. The assessee was the owner of land […]
Exemption under Section 54 of the Act is dependent on the date of acquisition of the property and not on the date of payment made in respect of such property. It is also noteworthy to mention that to claim an exemption under Section 54F of the Act, it is not necessary that the same sale consideration should be used for construction of a new house property.
Assessment or re-assessment made in pursuance to Section 153A of the IT Act, is not a de novo assessment and therefore, it was not open to the Appellant to claim and be allowed deduction or allowance of expenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment proceedings which in the case of the Appellant stood completed.
Taxpayer filed the GST return within the time granted by Karnataka High Court and the return filed was a return as contemplated under section 62 (2) which is to be construed to be return filed within the time. If that were to be so, the return filed in terms of the High court order was a return in terms of section 62(2) and the best judgment assessment orders passed under section 62(1) would stand withdrawn.
The Petitioner filed petition against the order dated May 24, 2017 (Order) by the passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal denying the input tax credit (ITC) in respect of capital goods and imposing penalty stating that penal provisions are mandatory.
Swan Silk Private Limited Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) The Assessing Officer with regard to claim disallowance of 50% of credit card expenses has held that the assessee has not adduced any evidence that drawings made by the Directors through their personal credit card are in fact, incurred for the purpose of business of the […]
Novel Security Services Vs Additional Director (Karnataka High Court) In the present case, it is seen that every attempt made by the respondent to secure information/document from the appeal were stonewalled by the appellant. Though the show cause notice issued by the respondent which was impugned before the learned Single Judge was not preventive in […]
