B V Harish Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) In this case Karnataka High Court quashed and set aside a criminal case registered against founders of Bitcoin company, Unocoin for setting up a Bitcoin ATM in Bengaluru in 2018 as the case has been registered against the petitioners based on the Circular dated 06.04.2018 […]
From perusal of the order passed by the authorities, it is evident that the authorities have accepted the books of accounts produced by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in its order, has admitted that the payment of speed money is a trade practice which is followed by the assessee and similar business concerns functioning for speedy completion of their work.
Rule 4(a) of the Re-Export Of Imported Goods (Drawback Of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 provides for exemption or waiver of the requirement physical verification and cannot form the sole basis for rejection of the claim for drawback of duty under Section 74 of the Act.
By no stretch of imagination Form VAT 240 can be treated as a returns for the purposes of claiming input tax credit, especially in the light of the fact that filing of returns to compute the net tax liability has to take place keeping in view Section 10(3) and 10(4) of the KVAT Act.
Respondent is engaged in providing services with regard to maintenance and repair of computer software. Vide Notification dated 21.08.2003, the maintenance services related to computers, computer systems or computer peripherals were exempt from payment of service tax.
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
