Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2022

The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the court.

The High Court found that the revenue department's submission regarding the exception clause was correct. Consequently, the review petition was allowed, and the original appeal was restored for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the reasons provided for the delay were sufficient and bonafide, especially considering the appellant is a State Government entity. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was condoned.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of suppression of material facts and approaching the court with unclean hands. The court found that the petitioners had failed to disclose previous proceedings related to bail and had not been candid about the execution of the power of attorney.

The High Court held that the item in dispute was indeed the self-acquired property of the second defendant, and the sisters were entitled to their share in the other ancestral properties. The court confirmed the trial court's judgment and decree.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal and decided not to interfere with the lower court's decision. The appeal was accordingly rejected.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal and decided not to interfere with the previous order. The appeal was accordingly rejected.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal, as it was identical in substance to a previously decided case. Therefore, the court declined to interfere with the lower court's decision.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal, as the appellant's counsel did not dispute the similarity to the prior case. Therefore, the appeal was rejected.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal and decided not to interfere with the previous order. The appeal was accordingly rejected.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal and decided not to interfere with the previous order. The appeal was accordingly rejected.

The High Court acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous decision in CIT vs. M/s. Biocon Ltd. This submission was not disputed by the Revenue.

The High Court accepted the joint submission of the parties regarding the settlement of the cases under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeals were disposed of in terms of this settlement.

The tribunal held that the applicant, having been appointed pursuant to a Supreme Court direction based on his wait-list position, is entitled to notional seniority and consequential benefits. He should be placed at the end of the last person appointed from the select list, but salary is only from the date of assuming charge.

The tribunal held that the applicant, having been appointed pursuant to a Supreme Court direction based on his wait-list position, is entitled to notional seniority and consequential benefits. He should be placed at the end of the last person appointed from the select list, but salary is only from the date of assuming charge.

The High Court held that there is no conflict between the power to levy GST and the power of a Municipal Corporation to levy advertisement fee or tax. The court found that the advertisement tax/fee is distinct from GST.

The Court held that the notifications extending the operation of the erstwhile Section 148, 149, and 151 were beyond the authority of the Central Government. Furthermore, the mandatory provisions of Section 148A were not complied with.

The tribunal held that compensation payable for land acquisitions under the KIAD Act, subsequent to January 1, 2014, should be governed by the 2013 Act and is exempt from income tax and tax deduction at source.

The tribunal held that compensation payable for land acquisitions under the KIAD Act, subsequent to January 1, 2014, should be governed by the 2013 Act and is exempt from income tax and tax deduction at source.

The High Court found that the revenue department's submission regarding the exception clause was correct. Consequently, the review petition was allowed, and the original appeal was restored for fresh hearing.

The High Court quashed the penalty order and demand notice because they were based on an assessment order that had been set aside. The respondents were given liberty to initiate action after a fresh assessment.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's press release and a subsequent order under Section 119(2)(b) addressed the petitioners' grievances regarding the filing of settlement applications. Therefore, the writ petitions were rendered unnecessary.

The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) committed a mistake by passing a final assessment order and issuing a demand notice at the stage of a draft assessment order. This procedural error is not curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's press release and a subsequent order under Section 119(2)(b) addressed the petitioners' grievances regarding application filing deadlines. Consequently, the writ petitions were deemed unnecessary.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's press release and a subsequent order under Section 119(2)(b) addressed the petitioners' grievances regarding the filing of settlement applications. Therefore, the writ petitions were disposed of as having become unnecessary.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the 2020 Act. Consequently, the impugned notice dated June 30, 2021, issued under Section 148, was quashed.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's press release and a subsequent order under Section 119(2)(b) addressed the petitioners' grievances regarding application filing deadlines. Consequently, the writ petitions were deemed unnecessary.

The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to comply with its previous directions to record findings on whether the assessee fulfilled the scheme conditions. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to comply with its previous directions to decide the matter afresh. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's press release and a subsequent order under Section 119(2)(b) addressed the petitioners' grievances regarding application filing deadlines. Consequently, the writ petitions were deemed unnecessary.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant notifications issued by the CBDT as ultra vires the Income Tax Act and the 2020 Act. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 was quashed.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's press release and a subsequent order under Section 119(2)(b) addressed the petitioners' grievances regarding application filing deadlines. Consequently, the writ petitions were deemed unnecessary.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act and the Taxation and Other Laws Act. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act and the 2020 Act. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the 2020 Act. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Taxation and Other Laws Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.

The High Court held that the petitioner should avail the alternative remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. The court directed the authorities to defer proceedings for six weeks to allow the petitioner to pursue this remedy.

The High Court quashed the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. However, it allowed the Assessing Officer to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, provided they strictly comply with the law.

The High Court held that the Tribunal failed to comply with its previous directions by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer instead of deciding it itself. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, should have analyzed the facts and recorded findings.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the 2020 Act. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the 2020 Act. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was quashed.

The High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner. This was based on a joint affidavit filed by the parties indicating a settlement has been reached.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's press release and a subsequent order under Section 119(2)(b) addressed the petitioners' grievances regarding application filing deadlines. Consequently, the writ petitions were deemed unnecessary.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was quashed.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the CBDT notifications as ultra vires. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was quashed.

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 as ultra vires. Consequently, the impugned notices dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 were quashed.