High Court in the case of assessee had held that by taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and punishment which was liable to be involved where assessee was indulged in issuing fake invoices without actual supply of goods with an intention to fraudulently avail the input tax credit, accused assessee’s were given anticipatory bail for the offence punishable under Section 137 of GST Act, 2017 subject to certain conditions.
Pragati Automotion (P.) Ltd. Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to correct the bonafide error which has crept in while filing the GST Tran – 1 form because of which the petitioner is deprived of the transitional credit of […]
It was held that Amount received by assessee from his father out of sum received by father for transfer of mining lease right to a Company in which assessee was shareholder cannot be treated as deemed dividend income of the assessee under section 2(22)(e) as sum was not received on behalf of Assessee and it was for a commercial transaction.
Pr. CIT Vs Dilip Ranjrekar (Karnataka High Court) In the instant case, the investment is made in a new property. The construction was not completed within a period of three years as narrated in section 54 of the Act. The delay was not because of the assessee, but beyond his control, since the construction was […]
M. K. Agrotech Private Ltd. Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) The main purpose of crossing a demand draft is to ensure that the payment is cleared by means of an account, i.e., the payment is deposited in the Bank Account i.e the person in whose favour the demand draft has been drawn. It ensures the […]
CIT Vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Payment for bandwidth charge utilization was royalty and TDS was required to be deducted under section 195 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and on failure to deduct TDS, the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was rightly made by the Assessing Officer. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER […]
M/s. Prosper Jewel Arcade LLP Vs The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (High Court Karnataka) The Court further added that “therefore, the larger constitutional questions raised in the present writ petition and as sought to be canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner like the substitution of Entry 54 in List II, effect of […]
XLHealth Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI (Karnataka High Court) The total callous, negligent and disrespectful behaviour shown by the Departmental authorities in this Court should not be tolerated at all. It is this kind of lack of judicial discipline which if it goes unpunished, will lead to more litigation and chaos and such public […]
PCIT Vs M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery (Karnataka High Court) It is clear that the Courts and the Tax Authorities can look into the real purpose of the commercial arrangements and transactions to reach the truth and the transactions having the sole purpose of tax avoidance may be held to be having no effect on […]
M/s. Kalyani Motors Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) After hearing the learned counsels, this Court is surprised and is pained by the manner in which the authority has passed the impugned reassessment order in the second round of assessement for the period 04.0211 to March 2012 just ignoring the […]
