Financial stringency would not justify the non-remittance of TDS to the Government, in as much as, it would amount to utilization of money payable to the appropriate government. As such, by extending its benevolence.
MFAR Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Return is the basis on which the computation of tax liability has to be made including the input tax credit in terms of Section 10[3] and Section 10[4] of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is not in dispute that no […]
In a recent case of M/s. Fresh and Honest Cafe LTD. V. The Deputy Commissioner [Ct] and Anr. (Karnataka High Court) , a ruling was stated by Justice S. Sujatha (Karnataka High Court) that stats that any mistake said to have been committed by a learned CA in filing VAT Form 240 will not be seen as an intentional mistake and further not levy section 69(1) as court rule by Karnataka high court.
HC held that The Notification impugned dated 1.10.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka insofar it relates to the amendment made to the Notification dated 30.3.2002 for insertion of sub-item [ii] in Serial No.[5], specifying unmanufactured tobacco in ‘sealed container’ for levy of Entry Tax at 5% with effect from 02.10.2013 cannot be held to be unjustifiable and is accordingly upheld.
To treat any person as a Principal Officer, such person should be connected with the management or administration of the local authority/company or association or body. Such connection with the management or administration is the basis for treating any person as a Principal Officer.
Times VPL Limited Vs CIT (Karnataka High Court) In the instant case, appellant company had enter into an agreement for bulk sale of advertising space with its’ holding company on a principal to principal basis by transfer of rights therein. The appellant under the agreement makes purchase of advertisement space and exercises control over such […]
If only a part of the amount deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme is utilized for the construction or purchase of a new asset within the specified time, income tax is chargeable on the unutilized amount.
We hold that there is no immunity to the companies from prosecution merely because the prosecution is in respect of offences for which the punishment prescribed is mandatory imprisonment.
Sri Nayaz Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) State counsel to accept notice for respondents. 2. In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Order, dated 4-2-2019 vide Annexure-C, passed under section 83(1) read with section 5(3) of Karnataka Goods and Services Act of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. Petitioner has […]
Unutilized capital gain amount under Section 54 F[4] had to be charged under Section 45 as income of the previous year, after the expiry of three years from the date of sale of the capital asset as per proviso appended to Section 54F[4] and withdrawal of amount was permitted subject to deduction of tax.
