-
The act of filing the returns by itself cannot be construed as an attempt to evade tax, rather the submission of the returns would suggest that assessee had voluntarily declared his intention to pay tax.
Vyalikaval House Building Co Operative Society Ltd Vs The Income Tax Department By Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19670 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Unless a specific provision is made in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement in as much as penalty is concerned, the provisions of Section 271[1][c] of the Act shall continue to apply.
Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19630 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
n the instant case, the only circumstance relied on by the respondent in support of the charge levelled against the petitioners is that, even though accused filed the returns, yet, it failed to pay the self-assessment tax along with the returns. This circumstance even if accepted as true, the same does not constitute the offence u/s 276C (2).
M/S. VYALIKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1) BANGALORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19585 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79015&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Re-opening on Infosys based on subsequent year's assessment is quashed.
INFOSYS BPO LTD Vs THE ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19541 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
S. 276B TDS Prosecution: Mere delay in depositing TDS within the time limit prescribed in S. 200 & Rule 30 is an offense sufficient to attract s. 276B. The fact that the TDS has been deposited subsequently does not absolve the offense. The fact that penalty u/s 221 has not been levied is not relevant because there is an admitted delay in depositing TDS.
Golden Gate Properties Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19538 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Sections 221, 276B
-
The reasons are the soul and heartbeat of the orders without which the order is lifeless and void.
SRI DEEPAK DHANARAJ Vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19406 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Launch of prosecution proceedings u/s.276B against petitioner [a real estate co.] for failure to deposit the TDS deducted to the account of Central Government within the prescribed time-limit is upheld.
M/s. Golden Gate Properties Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19405 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 201
-
Only because an alternative remedy is not provided and the assessee was compelled to file a writ petition, the Revenue cannot take advantage of it.
Sri Dinakar Ullal Vs The CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19263 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
S. 260A: Dept directed to "bonafide apply mind" before filing appeals to the High Court. Concern & anguish expressed at the tendency of the Dept to file unnecessary appeals even though the issues are ex facie covered by decisions of the jurisdictional High Courts or even the Supreme Court. CBDT & Ministry of Finance directed to take needful action
PCIT vs. Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19146 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 260A
-
HC - The objections raised by the petitioner on 20.12.2018 to the summary of reasons recorded provided by the AO has not been disposed of by a speaking order - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 not valid.
MPHASIS LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 (1) (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17906 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75827&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The ingredients of Sec. 153-C should be explicitly expressed in recording the satisfaction report by the AO of the searched person. In absence quashes assessment u/s 153C.
SHYAMRAJ SINGH Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16648 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 153C
-
HC - Section 40(a)(ia) for TDS default can be invoked in assessee-Trust’s case only from 01.04.2019.
SRI. ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16628 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
HC - Merely stating that the case is covered under Section 153-C of the Act and the case has been notified under Section 153 of the Act would not be suffice and the same cannot be construed as the satisfaction recorded under Section 153-C of the Act.
MR. SHYAMRAJ SINGH, S/O SRI B.S. BALAJI SINGH, M/S SVK MINERALS, M/S SVK MINERALS VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16623 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75576&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Amount received by the assessee from his father during family settlement is not unusual and cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e).
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS SHRI BASANT PODDAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16429 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75158&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - If one has invested the amount received on sale of capital asset either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house, even though the transactions are not complete in all respects, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit u/s 54F.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER VERSUS MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16396 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75053&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The total callous, negligent and disrespectful behaviour shown by the Departmental authorities in this Court should not be tolerated at all. It is this kind of lack of judicial discipline which if it goes unpunished, will lead to more litigation and chaos and such public servants are actually a threat to the society. Commissioner (Appeals) should pay cost of Rs. 1 lakh from his personal funds
XLHealth Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16058 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Court is pained by the manner in which the authority has passed the order just ignoring the applicable Notification and throwing it to winds. The said order is nothing less than suffering from malice-in- facts as well as malice-in-law. The responsible officer deserves to pay the exemplary costs for passing such whimsical order from her personal resources or by deduction from salary
Kalyani Motors Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15868 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
S. 254(2) Time limit for filing MA: 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. Injustice was done to the assessee because the Tribunal did not follow the binding judgement in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 on the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Accordingly, the delay in fling the MA deserves to be condoned
Muninaga Reddy vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15634 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section. 254(2)
-
HC - By the notice under Rule 73, petitioner is not accused of committing any non-bailable offence and the said notice does not give rise to any apprehension of immediate arrest. Dismisses 'anticipatory bail' plea.
M A Zahid Vs. Ass. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15321 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section. 276C
-
HC - Exemption u/s Sec 10B available on deemed exports.
International Stones India Pvt. Ltd. Pr. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15295 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section. 10B
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.