Search Results For: B. Manohar J


C M Mahadeva vs. CIT (Karnataka High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 24, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: An assessment cannot be reopened for the purpose of making a fishing and roving enquiry

Section 147/148 of the Act is not meant for reopening an already concluded assessment by first issuing notice and then proceeding to investigate and find out if there was any lacuna in the accounts. If such further investigation, by reopening a concluded assessment, is permitted, it, would give rise to fishing and rowing enquiries, because, in every case, the Assessing Officer can then issue notice for the purpose of investigation, and thus reopen any concluded assessment

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (Karnataka High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194LA: TDS provisions apply only when payment is made by cash, cheques etc and not to a case of exchange such as of land for Certificate of Development Rights (CDR/ TDR)

The concept of tax deduction at source (TDS) and depositing the same with the Revenue is where payment is made by cash, cheque, demand draft or any other similar mode. When such payment in terms of money is made, the deduction is to be made by the person responsible to pay, and is to deposit the same with the Income Tax Department, which would be adjusted and credited to the account of the person on whose behalf such amount is paid to the Income Tax Department, and in such a case, such person, who would then be an assessee before the Department, would be entitled to adjustment of the amount so deducted as TDS on behalf of the said assessee. When no payment is made by BBMP to the land owner in terms of money, such deduction is neither possible nor is conceived under Section 194LA

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

M/s Kothari Metals vs. ITO (Karnataka High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 14, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 4, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: Non-furnishing of reasons for reopening to assessee renders reassessment void

The question of non-furnishing the reasons for re-opening an already concluded assessment goes to the very root of the matter. Since such reasons had not been furnished to the appellant, even though a request for the same had been made, we are of the opinion that proceedings for the re-assessment could not have been taken further on this ground alone

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. AMCO Power Systems Ltd (Karnataka High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 79: As the purpose of the provision is to prevent misuse of losses by transferring ownership, it should be restricted to cases of transfer of 'beneficial shareholding'. A transfer of shares of the loss-making company by the shareholder-company to its subsidiary is not hit by s. 79

The purpose of Section 79 of the Act would be that benefit of carry forward and set-off of business losses for previous years of a company should not be misused by any new owner, who may purchase the shares of the Company, only to get the benefit of set-off of business losses of the previous years, which may bear profits in the subsequent years after the new owner takes over the Company. For such purpose, it is provided under the said Section that 51% of the voting power which was beneficially held by a person or persons should continue to be held, then only such benefit could be given to the Company

Posted in All Judgements, High Court