When the amendment made under Section 200A of the Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015.
The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon various decisions of the High Court and of the Apex Court, but in none of the decisions, the question arisen before the respective Court as to whether the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can be disturbed or upset at the stage of appeal before this Court, which is limited to the question of law. All decisions proceed on the basis that the nexus is established, which as per the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is not established in the present case. Hence, the said decisions are of no help to the appellant.
It is the case of the petitioners that succumbing to the pressure of lobbying and political pressure, brought by the members of the Cost Accountants fraternity, the State Legislature sought to bring a further amendment to Section 63 of the KCS Act, by Act no. 35 of 2014.
It is clear that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the provisions of Section 44AB were not applicable to a Club, while supplying beverages, liquor etc., to its members as it was not engaged in any business
Karnataka High Court held In the case of M/s. Safina Hotels Private Limited vs. CIT & DCIT that it is clear that the notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c), which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274.
The notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274 of the Act.
In an important judgement in the case of Sri Anjaneya Agro Tech Private Limited Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) [2016-VIL-63-KAR], Hon ‘ble High Court of Karnataka has ruled that assessee-dealer is entitled to claim benefit of a subsequent judgement of the court, even after completion of assessments, by filing rectification application.
Karnataka High Court held In the case of CIT & ACIT vs. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank that Section 41(1) attracted when an allowance or deduction is sought to be made in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability is incurred by the assessee.
CIT vs. AMCO Power Systems Ltd (Karnataka High Court) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee would be entitled to carry forward and setoff of business loss despite the assessee not owning 51% voting powers in the company as per Section 79 of the Act by taking the beneficial share holding of M/s. Amco Properties & Investments Ltd.?
Section 35F of the Act has retrospective operation and is not restricted to only prospective It applies to all lis which have commenced prior to or after the enforcement of the amendment, except to cases covered under the second proviso thereof.
