Karnataka Court January 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Ace Multitaxes Systems Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: [2009]317ITR207(KAR); [2009]317ITR207(Karn)
1. Heard Sri M. V. Seshachala, learned Counsel appeared for the appellants, on the question of admission.2. This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dated November 8, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (B) in I. T. A. No. 132/Bang/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04.3. Paragraph 2.1 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal relevant for consideration of the said appeal is reproduced hereinbelow:2.1. We have heard both the sides. It appears that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Murali Export House v. CIT : [1999] 238 ITR 257 where similar audit report was not filed along with the return of income ; but later on, the same was filed. The hon'ble Calcutta High. Court allowed relief to the assessee holding that the Assessing Officer should have given time to file ...
Target Tours and Travels, Bangalore. Vs. National Departmental Stores, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KCCR1132
A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the acquittal of the respondents for the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called as 'the Act') on a trial held by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:I will be referring to the parties as per the rank before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.The appellant is the complainant and he filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondents herein who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial Court and it is alleged that the complainant is a travel agent operating his business in the name and style M/s. Target tours and travels and in the usual course of business had issued tickets to accused No.1 represented by its proprietor - accused No.2 in all amounting to Rs.1,28,300/-. Towards discharge of this amount the accused No.1 had issued two cheques bearing No. 0724...
Government of Karnataka Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Financ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2009
Reported in: ILR2009KAR633
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all persons who are dealers as the expression occurs in Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, the Act] and also dealers who are registered under Section 22 of the Act.2. Petitioners have a common grievance and complaint against the validity of the penalty orders, which penalty has been imposed on the petitioners under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act. Such penalty is levied on the petitioners either for their failure to file returns of the turnover, which is a periodic return to be filed every month, in terms of Section 35 of the Act or for their failure to have paid the tax, which they have collected and which had become payable within the permitted time, as stipulated in Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act.3. Writ petitioners are complaining that the quantum of penalty levied on them under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act, has assumed an oppress...
Philips Electronics India Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2009
Reported in: [2009]20STT314
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all persons who are dealers as the expression occurs in Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, 'the Act'] and also dealers who are registered under Section 22 of the Act.2. Petitioners have a common grievance and complaint against the validity of the penalty orders, which penalty has been imposed on the petitioners under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act. Such penalty is levied on the petitioners either for their failure to file returns of the turnover, which is a periodic return to be filed every month, in terms of Section 35 of the Act or for their failure to have paid the tax, which they have collected and which had become payable within the permitted time, as stipulated in Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act.3. Writ petitioners are complaining that the quantum of penalty levied on them under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act, has assumed an oppre...
Philips Electronics India Ltd. Reptd. by Its Manager - Corporate Fisca ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)AIRKarR1; AIR2009NOC2187
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all persons who are dealers as the expression occurs in Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, the Act and also dealers who are registered under Section 22 of the Act.2. Petitioners have a common grievance and complaint against the validity of the penalty orders, which penalty has been imposed on the petitioners under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act. Such penalty is levied on the petitioners either for their failure to file returns of the turnover, which is a periodic return to be filed every month, in terms of Section 35 of the Act or for their failure to have paid the tax, which they have collected and which had become payable within the permitted time, as stipulated in Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act.3. Writ petitioners are complaining that the quantum of penalty levied on them under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act, has assumed an oppressi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›