-
In the instant case it was axiomatic that the AO considered Section 56(2)(vii)(c) not to be attracted at all, rather than being unaware of the market price of the shares as alleged.
Azim Premji Trustee Company Pvt. Ltd Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28979 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
The mandatory conditions specified in Section 148A have not been complied with before issuance of impugned notice and thus impugned notice is invalid and liable to be struck down.
Mohammed Mustafa Vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28927 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Interest on loan/advances were brought to tax with reference to the value of transaction, therefore no prima facie reason arose to refer the loan transaction to TPO.
Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28910 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
If Revenue is aggrieved by the final judgment of the High Court, all the questions are kept open to be agitated before this Court including on the grounds which are raised in the Special Leave Petition.
Vahanvati Consultants Private Limited Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28678 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
When the Assessee makes a request for personal hearing under the faceless scheme, the same must be provided.
Greenvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER/NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28677 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
In light of the delay, there would be exclusion of interest from the amount if refund.
Devendra Pai Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28539 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
The grounds made for conducting search under Section 132 cannot be said to be mala fide or arbitrary.
Durgappa Lakkanna Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28501 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
The truck operators if not the truck owners, cannot be considered as the sub-contractors for the purpose of Section 194C.
Sri Shivamurthy Vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28335 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 194C
-
Capital asset transferred by the charitable trust and utilized for acquiring another capital asset would alone cannot be the criteria for granting exemption under Section 11(1A).
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. ST. JOSEPH’S MONASTERY
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28291 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86446&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The genuineness of the activities of the Trust is not a matter to be looked into at the time of dealing with the issue of registration of the Trust u/s 12AA.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. EMBASSY CHARITABLE TRUST
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28289 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86450&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the interest of justice we deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh after providing an opportunity in favour of the petitioner to provide/furnish the relevant information.
ARPITHA AGENCIES VERSUS ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28260 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86440&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee-Company adopting the mercantile system of accounting for the expenses relating to NACIL without offering the corresponding income to tax, resulted in hybrid method of accounting which is not permissible.
Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28239 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Investment in property registered in spouse's name is eligible for exemption u/s 54 and it cannot be construed as owned by the Assessee for determining eligibility for exemption u/s 54F.
Antony Parakal Kurian Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28238 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Sections 54, 54F
-
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made at the bar, we deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondents to process the request letter dated 14.08.2013 and to refund the excess.
ABS INDIA PVT LTD., SHRI. SUNIL ARORA, MANAGING DIRECTOR VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28235 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86420&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The truck operators if not the truck owners, cannot be considered as the sub contractors for the purpose of Section 194C (2) of the Act.
SRI. SHIVAMURTHY VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28207 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86387&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer invoking Section 154(2) to rectify the assessment order is wholly untenable for the reason that there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record to invoke the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4 (1) (2) BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. MPHASIS SOFTWARE & SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28198 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86378&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The transaction is of transfer of technical know-how and profit on sale of technical know-how cannot be brought to tax as capital gain u/s 45.
ABB Ltd Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28183 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
As income generated out of earlier release of State Government for its project would have to be converted into State’s equity towards the project and the same cannot be counted as income of BMRCL.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11 (2) BANGALORE VERSUS M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28179 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86362&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The guidance value of the land or the guidance value of the building would be appropriate mode to determine the full value of consideration in the case of a transfer where consideration for the transfer of a capital asset is not attributable or determinable.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1) VERSUS M/S. CPC LOGISTICS LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CPC (INDIA) LTD.) , M/S. SHANKAR VITTAL MOTOR CO. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28178 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86364&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the entities are governed by the co-operative principles under the law in force and registered under state enactments, by implication or otherwise, shall only have the meaning of a Co-operative Society.
KARNATAKA STATE SOUHARDA FEDERAL CO-OPERATIVE LTD Vs THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28173 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Sections 2(19), 80P
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.