Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2021

The High Court held that the demand notices were unsustainable as they were not preceded by the procedure stipulated under the Rules and did not consider exemptions for charitable institutions. The circular imposing tax was also found unenforceable due to the absence of an assessment method under Rule 6(c).

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was disposed of in terms of a previous order in the assessee's own case.

The High Court acknowledged that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was set aside without delving into the merits of the case.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for surrendering road margin areas were not legally supported and thus unenforceable. The petitioners were entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The tribunal held that the conditions imposed for relinquishing road margin areas were not legally enforceable as there was no specific statutory provision supporting such deprivation of property without compensation. The petitioners are entitled to compensation for their acquired properties.

The Court directed the respondents to refund the interest component as per the finalized orders and representation, along with applicable interest, within two months. The respondents had agreed to take necessary steps to pay the interest.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The court concurred with the decisions of coordinate benches in similar cases regarding the entitlement of charitable trusts to such relief.

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. The original appeal before the ITAT was dismissed, and the order allowing the assessee's appeal had reached finality as it was not further challenged.

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT circular for appeals with lower tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court held that entities registered under the Souharda Act are indeed co-operative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. They reasoned that the Souharda Act is a state enactment for the registration of co-operative societies, and therefore, such entities fall within the ambit of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court held that entities registered under the Souharda Act are indeed co-operative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. They reasoned that the Souharda Act is a state enactment for the registration of co-operative societies, and therefore, such entities fall within the ambit of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court of Karnataka considered the memo filed by the learned counsel for the Revenue seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. Permission was granted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to seek revival of the appeal if the need arises. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law that the Revenue intended to raise. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with the specified liberty.

The High Court held that entities registered under the Souharda Act are indeed co-operative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. They reasoned that the Souharda Act is a state enactment for the registration of co-operative societies, and therefore, such entities fall within the ambit of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court found that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT circular for appeals with lower tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court found that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT circular. The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the assessee.

The High Court of Karnataka, on 20.12.2021, allowed the Revenue's memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted permission for the withdrawal with liberty to seek revival of the appeal if the need arises. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The specific issues that might have been before the Tribunal or the High Court were not adjudicated upon due to the withdrawal of the appeal.

The High Court held that entities registered under the Souharda Act are indeed co-operative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. They reasoned that the Souharda Act is a state enactment for the registration of co-operative societies, and therefore, such entities fall within the ambit of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court held that entities registered under the Souharda Act are indeed co-operative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. They reasoned that the Souharda Act is a state enactment for the registration of co-operative societies, and therefore, such entities fall within the ambit of Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing, especially considering the lockdown period. The court quashed the impugment order and directed the assessing authority to provide a hearing.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The Court directed the Corporation and the Provident Fund Commissioner to provide the pensionary benefits to the petitioner as per the terms of the compromise. The Court acknowledged the arrangement made by the legal heirs.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing. The court noted that the period in question was during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

The tribunal found that the impugned order did not indicate that a hearing was granted to the petitioner. Considering the petitioner's request for an opportunity of hearing, the tribunal decided to grant it.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in violation of the mandatory requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.

The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.