-
S. 260A: Entire law on when transfer pricing disputes constitute "substantial questions of law" for challenge in the High Court explained. Transfer Pricing Adjustments on the basis of the comparables are a matter of estimate of broad and fair guess-work of the Authorities based on relevant material. The exercise of fact finding or ‘Arm’s Length Price’ determination or ‘Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ should become final with a quietus at the hands of the final fact finding body, i.e. the Tribunal. The ITAT's findings of fact cannot be challenged in the High Court unless it is shown that the findings are ex-facie perverse and unsustainable and exhibit total non-application of mind by the Tribunal to the relevant facts of the case and evidence before it
PCIT. Vs. Softbrands India P. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15275 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section. 260A
-
Stay of demand: Pr CIT & ACIT directed to pay personal costs for filing frivolous writ petition to challenge ITAT stay order. Raising unsustainable, illegal and high pitched demands and enforcing coercive recovery and challenging stay orders shows utterly irresponsible and unfair behaviour. Thereafter, seeking adjournments by the Dept of the hearing in the ITAT adds insult to the injury. Irresponsible and uncoordinated manner of the Dept strongly deprecated
ACIT. vs. Epson India Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14153 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
S. 10A/ 10B: Entire law on the concept of "derived from" the undertaking and "purposive interpretation" of statutes explained. The incidental activity of parking surplus funds with banks or advancing of staff loans by assessees covered u/s 10-A or 10-B is an integral part of their export business activity and a business decision taken in view of the commercial expediency. Such incidental income cannot be delinked from the profits and gains derived by the undertaking engaged from the export of specified goods and cannot be taxed separately u/s 56 of the Act
CIT. vs. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13749 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Sections. 10A, 10B
-
HC(Full Bench) - Tax holiday u/s 10A or 10B available on income by way of interest on bank deposits or staff loans earned by 100% EOU.
The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs M/s. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13738 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Sections 10A, 10B
-
A Chartered Accountant who is accused of offering a bribe to an Income-tax Officer for performing an official act can be tried under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and s. 120-B of the IPC. The fact that the CA is not a “public servant” is irrelevant
H. Naginchand Kincha vs. Superintendent of Police
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 13668 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
HC - The moment a favourable order is passed by SC pursuant to which amount is deposited with the Court Registry, the amount became assessable to tax in assessee’s hands. Sec. 234C interest applicable.
Canbank Financial Services Ltd. vs. CCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13616 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section. 234C
-
HC - Waiver of interest u/s 234C not upheld as assessee can not contend that it could not anticipate the accrual of income u/s 115JB.
M/s. CANBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., (WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CANARA BANK) Versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13605 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69992&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
NOC from Advocate to appoint new advocate: A litigant has the absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice and to terminate his services any time and for whatever reason. There is no concept of an "irrevocable vakalatnama". A party has the absolute freedom to change his advocate. Fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate. The Registry cannot insist on a NOC from the old advocate and refuse to take the new vakalatnama on record
Karnataka Power Transmission Corp Ltd vs. M. Rajashekar
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12764 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
S. 220(6) stay of demand: CBDT Circular dated 29.2.2016 does not supersede Instruction No.1914 but modifies it. Both have to be read together. The AO and CIT cannot straightaway demand payment of 15% of the dues but have to grant complete stay if the assessment is “unreasonably high pitched” or the demand for depositing 15% of the disputed demand leads to "genuine hardship" to the assessee”
Flipkart India Private Limited vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12414 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 220(6)
-
HC - Even though shares were determinable amongst beneficiaries, income cannot be taxed in hands of beneficiaries for their share of income and not in hands of Trustees. Therefore, tax on trustees at maximum marginal rate treating them as AOP was not valid.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru v. India Advantage Fund-VII
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12278 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68449&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 164: The explanation to s. 164 cannot be read for determinability of the shares of the beneficiary with the quantum on the date when the Trust deed is executed. The real test is whether shares are determinable even when even or after the Trust is formed or may be in future when the Trust is in existence
CIT vs. India Advantage Fund-VII
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12185 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 164
-
HC - No stay on recovery of demand since assessee has the capacity to pay, may be by out of his movable or immovable properties and inspite of that the ground is contended as of hardship, same cannot be termed as genuine hardship.
M/s. MOOKAMBIKA ASSOCIATES Versus SSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), BENGALURU AND OTHERS
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11805 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68109&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Assessee was having large number of immovable properties and had capacity to pay interest by sale or realisation from property, attachment of portion of property could not be said to be genuine hardship. Three conditions requisite for waiver of interest u/s 220(2A) not fulfilled, interest not to be waived.
Mookambika Associates v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2 (1), Bengaluru
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11787 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68109&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC- Section 194J not applicable where there was neither transfer of any technology nor any service attributable to a technical service offered.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Gulbarga v. Gulbarga Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11728 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66230&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writ Allowed - Word ‘shall’ used in Sec 245D(4A) suggests that the timeline is mandatory and not directory.
RNS Infrastructure Limited vs. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner and others
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11691 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section. 245D(4A)
-
HC - Society held Govt. grant only as a custodian, therefore neither grant nor interest thereon could be held as income.
Karnataka Municipal Data Society v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Bangalore
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11677 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66647&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Prosecution proceedings launched u/s 276(C)(2) read with Sec 277 for filing false declaration alongwith the return of income upheld.
Magdum Dundappa Lokappa, Suresh Sholapurmath vs ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11637 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
HC - Since once charge of additional post was held by Joint CIT in lawful manner he would be entitled for additional charge allowance.
Union of India v. R.S. Naik
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11632 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66944&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - No taxability of fund transferred to ‘Distribution Pool Fund Account’ in the hands of society.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus The Nagarbail Salt-Owners
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11584 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66876&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Where the sale of immovable property has not been made within three years as required under Rule 68B to Second Schedule to the Act, the effect would be the attachment order of the said property deemed to be vacated.
SRI K. VENKATESH DUTT, S/O. K.S. DATTATREYA Versus THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-7, BENGALURU
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11514 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66791&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.