Tribunal in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of section 254 had rectified the mistake apparent on record and deleted the double addition of income in respect of assessee. Thereafter, Revenue again filed an application under sub-section (2) of section 254 seeking rectification of order passed under sub-section (2) of section 254.
Shree Enterprises Vs CTO (Karnataka High Court) Facts- Petitioners have challenged the order of confiscation as illegal, seeking all consequential reliefs. Petitioners are claiming to be the consignee and transporter of the goods in question. It is their contention that the Respondent has detained the goods and vehicle illegally for more than a month in […]
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 […]
