Competition Commission of India had allowed to investigate against Flipkart and Amazon for alleged involvement in Anti-competitive Agreements. An order directing investigation be supported by ‘some reasoning’ (CCI Vs. SAIL para 97), which the Commission had fulfilled. Therefore, it would be unwise to prejudge the issues raised by Amazon and Flipkart in these writ petitions at this stage and scuttle the investigation.
Bangalore Turf Club Limited and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) Horse race clubs liable to pay GST only on commission and not entire bet amount; Rule 31A(3) of CGST Rules ultra vires The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (HC) in Bangalore Turf Club Limited and ors. v. Union of India [WP No. 11168/2018 and WP […]
Rao Computers Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) We have to find out in that context what was the intention of the parties in entering into the lease transaction. It is not the number of agreements, which are entered into between the parties which is decisive in determining the nature of transaction. What […]
Provisions of the IBC was having overriding effect over other laws and the same would prevail in view of Section 238 of the Code. Hence, the proceedings initiated against assessee under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2004 was quashed.
Neither Section 194-C nor 194-I of the Act would be applicable to the lease financing of motor vehicles; thus there could have been no disallowance on the ground that there was no tax deduction at source made by the Assessee.
High Court quashed the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) imposing royalty taxation for ‘Adwords program’ as the material on the basis of which the order had been passed by Tribunal was not furnished to the appellant at any point time, the order passed by the Tribunal was certainly violative of principles of natural justice and fair play as the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to rebut fresh evidence especially when such evidence was based on Google study.
Income Tax Department Vs Sri D K Shivakumar (Karnataka High Court) The gist of the offence under section 276C(1) is the wilfull attempt to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable or under reports of the income. What is made punishable is “attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest” and not the “actual […]
Union of India Vs AT And S India Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court) The facts of the case reveal that respondent No.1 before this Court has challenged the order dated 31.01.2020 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise whereby the request of the petitioner for availing TRAN-1 credit has been rejected […]
Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court) The Supreme Court in SHOORJI VALLABH DAS supra has held that income tax is a levy on income and the Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted i.e., accrual of income or its receipt but substance […]
The Commissioner of Central GST Vs Adhikari Engineering (Karnataka High Court) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued before this Court that the monetary limit involved is less than Rs.1 crore and in the light of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 22.08.2019, the appeal itself […]
