-
Interest paid on loan amount sanctioned by bank was directly made over to retiring partners as full payment of consideration agreed to be paid by continuing partners to retiring partners for relinquishment of their share, amount borrowed not for purpose of business. Interest not allowable
Hotel Roopa v. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6835 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61249&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Where revised return was declared as invalid then tax and interest amount paid on revised income needs to be refunded.
K. Nagesh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6824 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61246&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Availability of alternate remedy under Act would not be a bar for Court to examine notice issued under section 148 if challenged on ground of no jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice, no authority of law and validity or vires of statutory provision being under challenge.
Dell India (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6798 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60973&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Contract of manufacturing goods as per specification without supply of material was contract of sale and not a contract for carrying on any work within meaning of section 194C.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Allergan India (P.) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6780 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61217&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Even if case of assessee falls in first proviso to section 2(15), no cancellation of trust's registration on ground.
Director of Income-tax, Exemption, Bangalore v. Kodava Samaja
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6733 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61187&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Assembling of instruments and apparatus for measuring and detecting ionizing radiators is a manufacturing activity eligible for deduction u/s 10B
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Saint Gobain Crystals & Detectors India (P.) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6654 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61160&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Framing of assessment against the non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural irregularity, but, a jurisdictional defect, could not be cured by resorting to sec. 292B
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Bangalore v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6621 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60734&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Non-provision of detailed plan for proposed expenditure is not a sufficient ground to deny accumulation claim u/s 11(2).
DIT. vs. Envisions
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6572 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section. 11(2)
-
HC - It is not the requirement of law that in a notice issued under Section 158BC, the period of block period is to be specifically mentioned by the authorities
DCIT. vs. Basant Kumar Patil
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6566 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section. 158BC
-
HC - Trial Court conviction in case of Jayalalitha, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is set aside. Trial Court ignored evidentiary value of income tax proceedings
Selvi J. Jayalalitha Vs. State
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6506 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
HC - When the assessment itself is annulled and revised return filed by assessee is held invalid, then excess taxes paid in revised return must be refunded
K Nagesh vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6477 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
HC - Filing of Form No.15I/J is only directory and not mandatory. Also, only if there is any breach of requirements of Section 194C(3), the question of applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) arises.
CIT. vs. Marikamba Transport Company
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6450 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Sections. 40(a)(ia), 194C(3)
-
HC - It is mandatory that if the application for renewal of recognition under Section 80G is not disposed of within six months from the date on which the application is made, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction either to pass an order granting the approval or rejecting it
M/s. Maheshwari Foundation Versus The Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Bangalore
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6445 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61008&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - It is mandatory that if application for approval u/s 80G is not disposed off within six months from date on which application is made, Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass an order either granting approval or rejecting it.
Maheshwari Foundation v. Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Bangalore
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6408 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61008&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Expenditure towards the procurement of technical know how by paying a lumpsum consideration for use in the course of business is a revenue allowable u/s 37 and the provisions of Section 35 AB are not applicable
M/s Diffusion Engineers Ltd. (Formerly Known As Diffusion Engineers Pvt. Ltd.) Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6400 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60994&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - There was commercial expediency in payment of sum to avoid execution of decree against assessee by way of attachment of property, hence the same is allowable as business expenditure
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Hitachi Koki India Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6315 (HC-KARNATKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60980&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Lumpsum payment for procurement of technical know-how for use in the course of business is revenue in nature and deductible u/s 37.
Diffusion Engineers Ltd vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6283 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section. 37, 35AB
-
HC - Reassessment initiated for examining tax implications of deferred revenue on warranty claims is justified. Writ of assessee dismissed.
Dell India Pvt Ltd. vs. JCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6255 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
HC - Either interest need to be waived or if not waived then the waived principal amount will have to be reduced by the amount of interest, which is not permitted for deduction u/s 43B. Revenue cannot treat entire waived amount towards principal and also deny interest u/s 43B (a double jeopardy).
CIT and Anr. vs. KLN Agrotechs (P) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6252 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section. 43B
-
HC - ‘Provision for Lease Equalization account’ is not a reserve while computing book profits u/s 115JA. Addition as per Explanation (b) to Sec 115JA(2) not correct.
Cit vs ICICI Venture Funds Management Co. Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6133 (HC-KARNATKATA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.