Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

Karnataka High Court — Direct Tax

371 rulings

  1. Karnataka High Court · 01 Jan 2020
    The Tribunal has merely referred to the decision of the Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and has not adverted to the facts of the case. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding on the issue whether the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act applies to the fact, situation of the case and whether the tax was required to be deducted at source under Chapter 17B.

    Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20745 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 40(a)(ia)

  2. Karnataka High Court · 02 Jan 2020
    The show cause notice issued was legally untenable since it was compositely issued to 9 companies while the prosecution was launched only on the petitioners. The said notice was not issued as a show cause notice preceding adjudication or the prosecution. Captioned subject of the said notice was to keep the Managing Director informed and to treat him as the Principal Officer of the Company as also clarifies that the order u/s 201(1)/(1A) was passed only in the name of the petitioner-company and not against all the companies.

    Dr. Viloo Patell Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20732 (HC-KARNATKATA)

  3. Karnataka High Court · 02 Dec 2019
    Any order passed by TPO subsequent to the reference made by AO shall not be given effect to, until a decision is taken by AO.

    Essilor India Private Ltd Vs The ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20575 (HC-KARNATKATA)

  4. Karnataka High Court · 03 Dec 2019
    Pendency of the assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to institution of a criminal prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 276(1) or Section 277 of the Act.

    Sri D.K.Shivakumar Vs Deputy Director Income Tax (Inv)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20554 (HC-KARNATKATA)

  5. Karnataka High Court · 08 Nov 2019
    It is axiomatic that provisions of Section 194C would apply to a contract for work and not to a contract for sale.

    TIMES VPL LTD. THE CIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20404 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Sections 194C, 40(a)(ia)

  6. Karnataka High Court · 07 Nov 2019
    It is trite law that the Tribunal is bound by the provisions of the Act and the Rules and has no power to declare any provisions of either the Act or Rules to be invalid or ultra vires.

    Nirani Sugars Ltd Vs The ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20384 (HC-KARNATKATA)

  7. Karnataka High Court · 04 Oct 2019
    The requirement of commercial expediency should be judged in the context of prevailing socio-economic conditions. Tribunal committed serious error in concluding that the MoU between the assessee & Govt. of Karnataka is opposed to the public policy.

    M/S. KANHAIYALAL DUDHERIA Vs THE JCIT, CIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20221 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 37(1)

  8. Karnataka High Court · 26 Sep 2019
    The assessee would be afforded adequate opportunity to explain his case before passing an order on objective appraisal of the evidence available.

    Epson India Private Limited Vs The ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20176 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 148

  9. Karnataka High Court · 18 Sep 2019
    The second proviso to Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merits acceptance. No substantial question of law arises.

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BELAGAUM, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, BIJAPUR VERSUS SHRI S.M. ANAND

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20110 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79925&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  10. Karnataka High Court · 16 Sep 2019
    Where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. The doctrine of fairness is a relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. Considering the principle of fairness as elucidated by SC, we are unable to subscribe to the view of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the decision referred to.

    S. M Anand Vs The ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20098 (HC-KARNATKATA)

  11. Karnataka High Court · 13 Sep 2019
    No order for the arrest and detention in civil prison of a defaulter shall be made unless the Tax Recovery Officer has issued and served a notice upon the defaulter calling upon him to appear before him on the date specified in the notice and to show cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison, unless the Tax Recovery Officer is satisfied for the reasons which are mentioned in clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 73 of Schedule II of the Act.

    LALITH KUMAR RAMANI VERSUS RECOVERY OFFICER, BENGALURU

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20072 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79864&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  12. Karnataka High Court · 09 Sep 2019
    Assessee has incurred the expenditure towards construction of 169 houses for the villagers who had lost their home due to natural calamity. In order to cater to the needs of those destitute persons who had lost the roof over their head on account of natural calamity, assessee constructed the houses by expending the amount. AO and the authorities have held that it was not incurred for the purpose of business.

    M/S. KANHIYALAL DUDHERIA VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BALLARI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20043 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79831&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  13. Karnataka High Court · 06 Sep 2019
    It is trite law that at the stage of show cause notice, charge sheet, summons or notice to appear, constitutional courts would not interfere so as to interject the proceedings and thereby prevent the authorities from proceeding with. The mere issuance of a show cause notice or notice to appear for the purposes of investigation does not infringe the right of a party, as it does not affect the right of such party.

    SRI. SACHIN NARAYAN Vs THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20031 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 132

  14. Karnataka High Court · 02 Sep 2019
    In order to get over the penal consequences that follow on account of non-payment of tax deducted at source, it is open for the accused persons to come clean of the said charge by showing reasonable cause for failure to deposit the said amount. In the light of this provision, contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.

    GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS VERSUS INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19987 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79760&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  15. Karnataka High Court · 13 Aug 2019
    There was no application of mind by the Authorities while arriving at a decision insofar as this issue is concerned. It is the specific case of the assessee that the letter of confirmation issued by various persons to establish the hand loans received by the assessee has not been considered.

    SRI BAIRAPPA KRISHNAPPA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , BENGALURU

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19843 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79537&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  16. Karnataka High Court · 13 Aug 2019
    It is ex-facie apparent that the order impugned is a cryptic order passed by the ITAT without assigning valid reasons. No stay petition would have been dismissed outrightly for recovery of the outstanding demand.

    M/S. STERLING URBAN DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-6 (1) (2), BENGALURU

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19842 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79539&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  17. Karnataka High Court · 12 Aug 2019
    It is trite law that the AO has a legal obligation to implement the order of the ITAT strictly and such failure would result in the failure of justice.

    LOKESH CHANDRAPPA S/O CHANDRAPPA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (2) (4), BANGALORE

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19838 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79519&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  18. Karnataka High Court · 09 Aug 2019
    Alternative arrangements were made to remit the refund either through RTGS/NEFT or by issuing cheque or DD to the assessee and disposes of the writ petition with a direction to expedite the refund process.

    Avo Carbon Holdings LLC Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19826 (HC-KARNATKATA)

  19. Karnataka High Court · 06 Aug 2019
    The language or expression of sub-section (1) of Section 132 is clear and unambiguous.

    THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU, THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3) , VERSUS M/S. ASSOCIATED MINING CO.,

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19793 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79443&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  20. Karnataka High Court · 22 Jul 2019
    Proviso appended to Section 58[4][f] has to be read as a whole along with the Clauses [a] and [b] therein which would explain the real intendment of the phrase not utilized wholly or partly.

    PROF. P.N. SHETTY VERSUS OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, UDUPI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19702 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79290&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.