Commissioner of Customs Vs Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: Imported material could be disposed of or utilized in any manner including local sale once the export obligations were fulfilled and the only requirement as per condition No.(vii) was that such inputs should not be sold or transferred in the market. In other words, […]
ust as in the case of civil actions the claim was not to be brought after the expiration of a specified number of years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, so in the case of arbitrations, the claim was not to be put forward after the expiration of the specified number of years from the date when the claim accrued. The period of limitation for making claims by BBMP by way of a suit or arbitration was six years from the date when the cause of action arose.
Kunal Bahl Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) In E-commerce transactions the jurisdiction to try offences will lie with a Court where the accused has its Head Office, Branch Office or other offices. 1. The order of Cognisance dated 8.6.2020 is not in compliance with the requirement of Section 191(1)( a) of the Cr.P.C […]
Commissioner Of Customs Vs Motorola India Limited (Karnataka High Court) The tribunal on the basis of advance licences issued to the respondent and the standard input output norms has recorded a finding that the respondent was allowed to import 2% in excess to provide for the wastage. It is also pertinent to mention here that […]
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.
