Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2023

The tribunal held that the services rendered by IBM Philippines were business profits and not technical services. Since IBM Philippines had no Permanent Establishment in India, the income was not taxable in India.

The High Court noted that the matter had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and that nothing further survived in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court held that the transfer of the capital asset did not occur in the assessment year 2009-2010, as the JDA stipulated that possession was for development purposes and alienation power would only come into effect after construction completion and occupancy certificate. The ITAT's view was considered perverse.

The High Court held that the transfer of the capital asset did not occur in the assessment year 2009-2010, as the JDA stipulated that possession was for development purposes and alienation power would only come into effect after construction completion and occupancy certificate. The ITAT's view was considered perverse.

The High Court noted that the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme meant nothing survived in the appeal. The Revenue did not dispute this fact.

The High Court noted that the matter had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and nothing further survived in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The appellant (Revenue) sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted the leave to withdraw the appeal and accordingly dismissed it as withdrawn.

The High Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants (revenue) had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. Leave was granted, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not provide any findings on the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law that were intended to be raised. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court found that neither the AO, CIT(A), nor ITAT clearly established the amount advanced by the assessee and the amount repaid towards the loan. In the absence of specific findings on loan repayment, the amount drawn by the assessee would be treated as dividend.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not in conformity with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act and was barred by time. The High Court found no exception to the Tribunal's order.

The High Court held that revenue officers cannot arbitrarily fix the rate of interest or decide business expediency. The rate of interest agreed upon by the parties at 18% should be upheld as the director had declared and paid tax on this interest.