Karnataka High Court held that the Income tax returns, assessment particulars and related financial details do constitute “personal information” within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Karnataka High Court held that taxpayer cannot be permitted to retract voluntary disclosed income admitted in return of income filed nearly 14 months after the survey without giving evidence of coercion. Accordingly, appeal of assessee stands dismissed.
The Karnataka High Court held that consolidating multiple financial years into a single show cause notice under Section 74 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The impugned notice was quashed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings.
The High Court quashed the adjudication order after finding that the authority failed to consider uncontroverted submissions on valid tax invoices and GSTR filings, directing fresh hearing.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an order invalidating a return for alleged non-compliance with Section 44AB audit requirements and directed a fresh hearing on whether turnover actually exceeded ₹10 crores.
The Court held that clubbing multiple tax periods in one composite show cause notice under Section 74 is illegal. All consequential orders and proceedings were set aside with liberty for fresh action.
The High Court ruled that LTC involving foreign travel is not exempt under Section 10(5) and TDS must be deducted under Section 192. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
The Court directed refund of recovered GST demand, holding that recovery should not continue once appeal intention was intimated under Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST, subject to retention of statutory pre-deposit.
The High Court set aside the adjudication order for FY 2019-20, holding that the benefit of Circular No.183/15/2022-GST cannot be denied where identical errors exist. Authorities were directed to reconsider the matter under applicable GST Circulars.
The High Court quashed the rejection of a university’s Section 10(46) application because no opportunity of hearing was granted. It held that prior exemptions under other provisions do not bar independent consideration.
