PCIT Vs M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery (Karnataka High Court) It is clear that the Courts and the Tax Authorities can look into the real purpose of the commercial arrangements and transactions to reach the truth and the transactions having the sole purpose of tax avoidance may be held to be having no effect on […]
M/s. Kalyani Motors Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) After hearing the learned counsels, this Court is surprised and is pained by the manner in which the authority has passed the impugned reassessment order in the second round of assessement for the period 04.0211 to March 2012 just ignoring the […]
Dream Merchant Vs. State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) The features of the event organised by the appellant had been, as noticed, quite different. It had been a ‘fashion show’, where there had been sponsorship and advertisements; where the apparels and dresses of various manufacturers were put in exhibition on mannequins as also on live […]
CIT Vs Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru (Karnataka High Court) Protective, precautionary or alternate assessment is an assessment which is made ex- abundanti cautela by the Assessing Authority and is therefore called protective or Precautionary Assessment or alternative assessment. When the Department has any doubt as to the person who is or will be deemed to […]
PCIT (Exemptions) Vs Green Wood High School (Karnataka High Court) Income derived from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied, then adjustment of expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the income earned by the trust […]
M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) Issue- Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has power under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to give directions for fresh enquiry into the aspects of the subject matter of appeal filed before it either suo motu or on any grounds […]
Though the Tribunal has no power u/s 254(2) to condone delay in filing the MA, the High Court has power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to do substantial justice by condoning the delay.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (Karnataka High Court) The ‘Residential Complex’ in question was undertaken to be constructed by the Respondent Assessee M/s. Nithesh Estates Limited for ITC Limited under the Contract dated 01/04/2006. It is equally undisputed before us that the construction activity in question was in its entirety […]
Applicant has sought for Advance Ruling on the question that Whether the amount paid to dealer towards ‘rate difference’ post supply can be considered for the purpose of arriving at the ‘transaction value’ in terms of Section 15 of the Central Goods and Service Act’2017 ?. But the Applicant requested to permit them to withdraw the application filed for advance ruling vide their letter dated 29.05.2018, even prior to personal hearing.
PCIT Vs. Softbrands India P. Ltd (Karnataka High Court The existence of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for maintaining an appeal before the High Court. While the appeal to High Court under Section 260-A of the Act may be a First appeal in the sense from the order of final fact […]
