The Hon’ble Karnataka HC in the case of CCE Vs. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd held that reinsurance service is an input service for rendering insurance service because the reinsurance is an integral part of insurance service rendered by the insurance co. and cannot be termed as an activity post completion of insurance services.
Recently, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the matter of K. Madhav Kamath Brother & Co. v. Asst. Comm. of Central Excise, pronounced that even if service tax is paid prior to Show Cause Notice, still the penalty shall be leviable u/s 76/78, 77 of Finance Act’94.
Karnataka High Court rules rental income from sub-lease of office premises as part of business profits eligible for Section 10A deduction.
CIT Vs. M/S Mcdowell & Co Ltd Now Known As United Spirits Ltd (Karnataka High Court) In the instant case, as per the scheme he was allowed to retain the sales tax as determined by the competent authority and pay the same 15 years thereafter. The tax collected was deemed to have been paid and, […]
From a reading of the Centralised Processing of Statements of Tax Deducted at Source Scheme, 2013 it becomes clear that the Department has sought to achieve a comprehensive processing of statements filed under sub-section (3) of Section 200 of the Act, including rectification of a mistake in the said statement under Section-154 of the Act.
The respondents have not disputed this before us. It is true that the assessee had not deposited the long term capital gain in the capital gain account, and he had deposited the said amount in his savings account with Vijaya Bank.
After Kerala HC Karnataka HC too stay the enforcement of notices U/s. 234E by TRACES. In this case Petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of the provision of Section 234E of the income Tax Act and a notice to the petitioner levying fee vide annexure A1 to A21 and Annexure – B.
Explore the Karnataka High Court’s decision in CIT Vs. MBA Nahata Charitable Trust regarding donations, exemptions, and assessment under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
Only income from investment or deposit which has been made in violation of section 11(5) that is liable to be taxed and that violation under section 13(1)(d) does not attracts denial of exemption to trust.
To attract Section 45(4) there should be a transfer of a capital asset from the firm to the retiring partners, by which the firms ceases to have any right in the property which is so transferred. In other words, its right to the property should stand extinguished and the retiring partners acquires absolute title to the property.
