-
AO has not doubted the books of accounts of the appellant. AO has held that there is nothing on record to say that assessee was adopting any uniform policy in respect of discount and it was being given in the uniform way to the customers. The amount on account of discounts and rebates has been disallowed. CIT(Appeals) has held that the burden of proof lies on the assessee in order to claim that the expenditure falls under Section 37(1).
M/S. TRISTAR MOTORS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 (1) , BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22467 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82899&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From perusal of Section 10A of the Act, it is evident that the intention of the legislature is to encourage establishment of export oriented industries with the object of receiving convertible foreign exchange. In order to claim deduction under Section 10A of the Act, the conditions laid down under Section 10A(2) have to be complied with.
M/S. GRANITE MART LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-11 (2) , BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22466 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82900&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is apparent that the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act does not specifically disclose the charge against the Assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which is sine-quo-non for issuance of show-cause notice and for want of such particulars.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BELAGAVI. VERSUS M/S. RYATARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22451 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82890&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The satisfaction would be dependent on the approval of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is that only if the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax accorded approval for prosecution than the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax could be considered and acted upon by sanctioning prosecution. However, if the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax were to refuse permission then the Commissioner of Income Tax though satisfied could not initiate any proceedings due to the non approval by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
M/S. PACE VISION VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BELGAUM.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22415 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82854&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Except last nine years, the property which comprises land and building was let out by the assessee for a long period. The assessee had earned income by way of rent and rental income so received by the assessee was offered for taxation as income from the house property. The assessee has shown the property in question as capital asset in its balance sheet. There is no material on record to hold that the aforesaid property was converted by the assessee as an item of stock in trade.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 (1) , VERSUS THIRUMALA VENKATESHWARA ESTATE AND AGENCIES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22414 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82855&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The entire payment by the assessee is allowable as revenue expenditure and not merely 1/4th of payment towards non-competition fee as it does not bring in any capital asset and held that the payment is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and directed the Assessing Officer to give appropriate relief after re-computing the income as per the direction of this Tribunal and modified the order of the Tribunal to the said extent. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THE ASST. COMMISSIOINER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11 (2) , BANGALORE VERSUS M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD., (FORMALLY KNOWN AS M.S COMPAQ COMPUTER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22406 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82850&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the object of the Assessee is to increase share capital, the expenses incurred in expanding share capital would be in capital field.
GMR Industries Ltd Vs The CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22235 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
The satisfaction note has been recorded in respect of the appellant and the profit of G.T.Krishna Murthy as well as profit of M/s Sree Venkatesha Bottles has also been worked out. Therefore, we are satisfied that the requirement as laid down by the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Calcutta Knitwears as well as the Circular dated 31.12.2015 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes has been complied with.
M/S. SRI. VENKATESHA BOTTLES VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21228 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82630&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the assessee in support of identity, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of M/s Bhuwania Bros. Pvt. Ltd. had supplied a copy of the balance sheet and profit and loss account to the Assessing Officer. The appellant had also filed the copy of the return of income of M/s. Bhuwania Bros Pvt. Ltd. as well as copy of information letter.
M/S. KUMAR NIRMAN AND NIVESH PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21191 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82555&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
All the expenses incurred for expansion of capital base of the company was directly related to the capital incidentally, that would help in profit making. When the object of the Assessee is to increase share capital, the expenses incurred in expanding share capital would be in capital field. In the instant case also the assessee with an object to increase share capital has incurred expenses in the form of payment of interest on account of delay in allotment of shares, yet the increase in capital results in expansion of the capital base of the company and may also help in profit making.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 (3), THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11 (3) VERSUS GMR INDUSTRIES LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21175 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82553&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied for the occupancy certificate along with the architect's certificate before the Bangalore Development Authority on December 29, 2006 well within the stipulated period of one year as enumerated in condition No. 5(ii) of the approval under the Scheme 2002 and the said occupancy certificate was issued on June 23, 2007.
SOFTZONE TECH PARK LTD. VERSUS CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND UOI, REPSENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21164 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82539&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where an assessee converts his capital assets into stock-in-trade and starts dealing with them, the taxable profit on the sale must be determined by deducting on sale proceeds and the market value at the time of their conversion into stock-in-trade. The aforesaid principle has neither been taken into account by the AO as well as by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal.
SMT. DEEPA S. PAI VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, UDUPI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21102 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82380&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A conjoint reading of provision contained in Section 36(1)(viia) and explanatory note dated 30.06.1982 it is evident that deduction provided in Section 36(1)(viia) shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt therein in computing the income. The condition precedent for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is that a provision for bad and doubtful debt should be made in the accounts of the assessee.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III VERSUS M/S. SYNDICATE BANK
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21101 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82381&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Form-10 seeking exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 31.03.2016 and the application seeking condonation of delay was filed on 06.09.2018. It is a settled principle of law that when the claim is made belatedly, it is open to the claimant to offer explanation for the delay so brooked, subsequent to making the claim also vide Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NAGAPPA in the absence of statutory intent to the contrary.
M/S. SOUTH INDIA ASSEMBLIES OF GOD VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) BANGALORE, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21014 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82061&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
MAT inapplicable to assessee-bank prior to amendment to Sec 115JB(2) by the Finance Act, 2012 effective from AY 2013-14.
ING Vysya Bank Limited Vs The CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20931 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
The machinery provisions provided in Sub- Section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act would be rendered wholly unworkable in case of a Banking company. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Companies Act, 1956 has excluded insurance, banking companies or the companies engaged in the generation or supply of electricity from the purview of Section 211(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and resultantly from the purview of Section 115JB of the Act.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S. ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20921 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81942&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In order to avail benefit of deduction, twin conditions have to be satisfied, namely, that industry should be located in Industrial Backward District as prescribed by the Central Government vide Notification in the Official Gazette and the aforesaid Industry has to commence the production during the period beginning from 1st October 1994 and ending on 31st March 1999.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S. ENDEKA CERAMICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON MATHEY CERAMICS INDIA LTD.,
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20917 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81931&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
While dealing with an application for condonation of delay, the authority must satisfy itself with regard to the genuineness of the claim. However, the same does not mean that the authority should examine the merits of the claim closely and come to the conclusion as it amounts to prejudging the case.
Vasudev Adigas Fast Foods Pvt Ltd Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20864 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 119
-
Assessee fits into the definition of a co-operative society u/s. 2(19), despite registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and hence entitled for deduction u/s. 80P.
Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co operative Ltd Vs GOI, ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20833 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 80P
-
Even otherwise, it has been held that financial stringency would not justify the non remittance of TDS to the Government, in as much as, it would amount to utilization of money payable to the appropriate government.
KBR Infratch Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20777 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 221
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.