Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2017

The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they merely question the selection of comparables, unless the Tribunal's finding is ex facie perverse. The court found no substantial question of law in this case.

The High Court followed a previous judgment where it was held that co-operative banks were not required to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding to the contrary was deemed unsustainable.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding that co-operative banks were required to deduct tax at source was unsustainable. This decision followed a previous identical judgment by a Division Bench of the same court.

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax is not maintainable. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant, referencing Board Circular No. 21 of 2015, which deals with the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Court accepted this submission and consequently dismissed the appeal. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute between the assessee and the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed beyond the prescribed monetary limits, as per the relevant circulars, are not maintainable. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

The tribunal modified the impugned orders, holding that the balance gratuity payable was Rs. 26,232 with interest at 10% from the date of application to the date of deposit. The authorities below had failed to consider a payment of Rs. 12,180.

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, held that the present appeal has become infructuous. The reasoning provided is that M/s Nirani Sugars Ltd., the company subjected to a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, has already offered tax for the undisclosed income. The Income Tax paid by the company has achieved finality. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous. No specific finding was made on the merits of the ITAT's order or the original assessment order. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified. The High Court agreed, noting that the failure to submit Form No. 15J before the correct authority was a human error and that the sub-contractors did not own more than two goods carriages, thus not requiring tax deduction at source.

The High Court held that cooperative banks are not required to deduct tax on interest paid to their members for periods before June 1, 2015. This is based on an amendment to Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, which made the exemption prospective.

The Tribunal held that the appeal has become infructuous. The reasoning provided is that M/s Nirani Sugars Ltd., the company subject to a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, has already offered tax for the undisclosed income, and this tax payment has reached finality. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous. No specific ratio decidendi for future citation is explicitly stated beyond the finding on infructuousness. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the power under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked in the absence of any incriminating evidence discovered against the assessee during a search under Section 132 of the Act. Therefore, the addition made on account of gifts was not sustainable.

The tribunal held that Rule 5(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, is not arbitrary and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The discharge order was upheld as a discharge simpliciter.

The High Court did not decide on the merits of the stay application or the tax dispute. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo seeking leave of the court to withdraw the writ petitions. The memo was taken on record by the court. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the substantive issues that would have been argued had the petitions proceeded.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits in a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. A co-operative bank is a species of the genus 'co-operative society'.

The High Court held that disciplinary action cannot be taken against an officer for decisions made in a quasi-judicial capacity unless there are allegations of malice, bias, or extraneous consideration. The CAT's order quashing the disciplinary proceedings was upheld.