-
Criminal proceedings u/s 276B are independent of recovery proceedings under Sec 201(1) and 201(1A).
KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD and Sri VIJAY MALLYA vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2743 (HC-KARNATAKA) · 276B
-
Hon`ble High court upheld ITAT direction to deposit of 50 per cent of tax liability on the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking grant of interim stay.
Vodafone South Ltd vs DDIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2725 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
S. 80- O, assessee is rendering services in India to a foreign company, hence he is not entitled for any deduction.
H Raghavendra Rao vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2697 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 80-O
-
S. 80IA(4) - Developed the existing road median, erected bus shelters and light poles for its advertisement business, cannot be treated as infrastructure development. Benefit under Section 80-IA can be extended only to those assessees who have developed infrastructure facility as defined under sub-Section (4) of Section 80- IA. In the instant case, the assessee has not developed road or a toll road, bridge, highway or a rail system. The order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustainable. Accordingly, the questions of law in these appeals are held in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the order passed by the authorities below are up held.
CIT vs SKYLINE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2696 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 80IA(4)
-
Old Government Circular prescribing the guidance value for stamp duty can be placed reliance by the AO to reopen the assessments u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act.
CIT vs M L Sridhar
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2689 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 147 r.w.s 148
-
The word “contribution” used in Clause(b) of Section 43B means the contribution of the employer and the employee. Employees PF contribution deposited before due date of filing of tax return is eligible for deduction to employer.
ESSAE TERAOKA PVT LTD vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2687 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Sections 2(24)(x), 14A, 36(1)(va), 43B, 139(1), 143(1), 143(2), 143(3), 260A, rule 8D
-
Set off - MAT credit - Interest under Sections 234B and 234C - once this benefit is confirmed from 01.04.2007, when Section 115JAA was introduced, the legal position is the same and the Explanation introduced by Finance Act, 2006, which came into effect from 01.04.2007, is only clarificatory. Therefore, the condition is not applicable for the assessee for the period prior to 01.04.2007 and it is rightly rejected by both the appellate authorities.
CIT vs BPL LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2686 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax - Sections 115JAA, 115JB, 143(1), 143(3), 234B
-
Assessee entitled to claim exemption under Section 54(1) of the Act in respect of two separate residential houses acquired out of the capital gains.
Commissioner of Income-tax vs Khoobchand M. Makhija
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2679 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 54
-
S. 80IA(5) - Deduction is to be calculated when the claim for deduction is made.
CIT vs Shri Anil H Lad
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2677 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 80IA(5)
-
The explanation to sub-section (2A) of Section 10 does not require any striking down as sought by the petitioner. That section has been interpreted in this order having regard to the object of the amendment and the principles of Partnership Law.
VIDYA INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD vs UOI & Ars
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2660 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 10(2A), sub-sections (34), (35) and (38) of Section 10
-
When the status of the assessee is a Co-operative society and is not a Co-operative bank, the order passed by the Assessing Authority extending the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is correct. The Revisional Authority was not justified in invoking his power under Section 263.
CIT vs SRI BILURU GURUBASAVA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA BAGALKOT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2655 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(4), 263
-
Benefit u/s 10A can be extended even to the existing units, if they have fulfilled the condition u/s 10A(2)(a)(ii) and 10A(2)(a)(iii) of the Act and the requirement of setting up of a new STP unit does not arise. There is no transfer of business as contemplated under Section 45(1) of the Act and only the partnership firm was converted into a company and all the partners of the firm have become the shareholders of the company. All the assets and liabilities were transferred to the Company. None of the outsiders were inducted as shareholders. Circular No.1/2005 is in the context of Section 10B, the ratio of the circular equally applies to Section 10A also. The benefit under Section 10A would also be available even when an existing unit gets converted into STP unit. Hence, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to contend that no new undertaking came into being after approval of STPI.
CIT vs FORESEE INFORMATION SYSTEMS (P) LTD
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2648 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 10A
-
S. 10A/ 10B: Interest income out of surplus funds in Banks and sister concerns & EEFC account is eligible for exemption
CIT vs Motorola India Electronics (P) Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2644 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 10A, 10B
-
Remitted Back to ITAT
CIT vs Texas Instruments (India ) P.Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2625 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 80JJAA
-
10(23C)(iiiad) - An exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiib) cannot be either claimed or granted unless all the ingredients as reflected therein are satisfied/fulfilled. Merely because the Government gave lands and development funds and created assets of the University whereby it acquired income generation capacity would not mean the "income" that the University is generating from other sources will have to be treated as financial aid by the Government. If we say so, perhaps every such institution, which admittedly, make profit, also will have to be exempted under sub-clauses (iiiab) (iiiad) and (vi) of Section 10(23C).
VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2597 (HC-KARNATAKA) · sub-clauses (iiiab) (iiiad) and (vi) of Section 10(23C)
-
DVO report cannot be basis of any addition of undisclosed income during search proceding
CIT vs Vasudev Construction
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2591 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 158BD, 143(2), 142(1)
-
Where legal question was raised even first time before Tribunal, Tribunal was required to consider same in accordance with law
Sankeshwar Printers (P.) Ltd vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2553 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
JDA - Without possession of the property, no construction can be taken. In 1996, Power of Attorney was executed to sell the flats, an irresistible inference that can be drawn from the material on record is that possession has been delivered under the agreement; payment of Rs.10 lakhs was paid, that is the reason why roughly about Rs.35 lakhs has been paid between 30.6.1994 and 31.5.1996. It is a joint development agreement.
SMT PRAMEELA KRISHNA vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 2551 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 2(47)
-
Where conditions regarding penalty are not mentioned in the assessment order, mere mention of “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately” does not comply with the provisions of section 271(1)(c), even in light of the deeming provision of section 271(1B).
Commissioner of Income Tax vs MWP Ltd
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2435 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Income Tax Section 271(1)(c), 271(B)
-
Subvention payment from the parent/ principal to recoup losses of the subsidiary is taxable as revenue receipt - If the financial assistance is extended for repayment of the loan undertaken by the assessee for setting up new unit or for expansion of existing business then the receipt of such aid could be termed as capital in nature. On the other hand, if the financial assistance is extended to run business more profitably or to meet recurring expenses, such payment will have to be treated as revenue receipt. It is not the case of the assessee, in the present case, that the financial assistance was extended by Siemens AG either for setting up any unit or expansion of existing business or for acquiring any assets.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SIEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION NETWORKS LTD
(2013) TaxCorp(LJ) 2401 (HC-KARNATAKA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.