The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the validity of Communication No.GS 41 GOB 2018 dated 16th May, 2018, addressed by the Governor of Karnataka to Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (respondent No.3 herein) inviting him to form the government and be sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka.
Though the case has a chequered history and the facts are long the matter lies within a short compass. The core question is one relating to the maintainability of the suit, viz., O.S. No.106 of 2009 filed by the second respondent – Nandini seeking partition wherein the order of injunction was passed.
Whether in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc. is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs CIT (Supreme Court) It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Furthermore, a taxing Statute should not be interpreted in such a manner that its effect will be to cast a burden twice over for the payment of tax on […]
Plastiblends India Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (Supreme Court of India) Section 80-IA is a code by itself, it contains the provision for special deduction which is linked to profits. In contrast, Chapter IV of the Act, which allows depreciation under Section 32 of the Act is linked to investment. This Court has also made it […]
The Appellant failed to prove that he rendered technical services to the Sumitomo Corporation and also the relevant documents to prove the basis for alleged payment by the Corporation to him. The letters exchanged between the parties cannot be claimed for getting deduction under Section 80-O of the IT Act.
Tapan Kumar Dutta Vs. CIT (Supreme High Court) On a conjoint reading of Sections 158BC and 158BD, it is clear that no satisfaction to the effect that undisclosed income belongs to the searched person is necessary before issuing the notice under Section 158BC against the searched person as Section 158BC speaks of a condition that […]
The issue arising in this appeal is whether the essential components/parts of a boiler cleared by the assessee would attract duty under sub-heading 8402.10 of the first schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or sub-heading 8402.90 of the said schedule.
Honda Motor Co. Ltd Vs ADIT (Supreme Court of India) In the judgment of this Court dated 24th October, 2017 in Assistant Director of Income Tax-I, New Delhi v. M/s. E-Funds IT Solution Inc., Civil Appeal NO.6082 of 2015 and connected matters, it has been held that once arm’s length principle has been satisfied, there can […]
Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation(Gwalior) M.P. Ltd. Vs CIT (Supreme Court of India) It is not in dispute that an express power was conferred on the CIT to cancel the registration for the first time by enacting sub-Section (3) in Section 12AA only with effect from 01.10.2004 by the Finance (No.2) Act 2004 (23 of 2004) […]
