HAZARI 'SANTOSH v. PURSHOTTAM TIWARI

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Jindal Aluminium Limited

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.450 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(5), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. JUNDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED JINDAL NAGAR, TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE-560073. ... RESPONDENT (BY Ms. JINEETHA CHATERJEE, ADV., FO…

Tata Coffee Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the same fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…of the tribunal is perverse. [SEE: ‘SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES VS. CIT’, 300 ITR 205 SCC @ 211 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648]. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court in ‘SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURSHOTTAM TIWARI’, (2001) 3 SCC 179 while dealing with the expression ‘to be a question of law involving in the case’ held that ‘to be a question of law involving in the case’, there must be first a foundation for it laid in pleadings and the questions emerged from sustainable findings of fact arrived at by courts of fact and it must be necessary to 7 decide that ques…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S L & T Valdel Engineering Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…he tribunal is perverse. [SEE: ‘SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES VS. CIT’, 300 ITR 205 SCC @ 211 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648]. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court in ‘SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURSHOTTAM TIWARI’, (2001) 3 SCC 179 while dealing with the expression ‘to be a question of law involving in the case’ held that ‘to be a question of law involving in the case’, there must be first a foundation for it laid in pleadings and the questions emerged from sustainable findings of fact arrived at by courts of fact and it must be necessary to decide that question of law…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Narendra R

In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…on that tribunal is a fact finding authority and decision on facts rendered by the tribunal can be gone into by High Court only if a question is referred to it, which says the finding is perverse [See: SANTHOSH HAZARI VS. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI’, (2001) 3 SCC 179 and a decision of this court in CIT VS. SOFT BRANDS (P) LTD.’, (2018) 406 ITR 513, ‘KULWANT KAUR S. GURDIAL SINGH MANN’, (2001) 4 SCC 262, ‘VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT 330 ITR 1 (SC), ‘K.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR VS. CIT’, 247 ITR 178 (SC) and ‘SUDHARSHAN SILKS AND SAREES VS. CIT’, 300 ITR 205 (SC)]. Even otherwise, concurrent findings of fact reco…

The Director of Income -Tax vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…osition that tribunal is a fact finding authority and decision on facts rendered by the tribunal can be gone into by High Court only if a question is referred to it, which says the finding is perverse [See: SANTHOSH HAZARI VS. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI’, (2001) 3 SCC 179 and a decision of this court in CIT VS. SOFT BRANDS (P) LTD.’, (2018) 406 ITR 513]. 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may examine the facts of the case in 15 hand. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee had filed copies of agreement, brief note on nature and purpose of remittance, invo…

The Director of Income-Tax vs. M/S Sasken Communication

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

…al is perverse. [SEE: ‘SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES VS. CIT’, 300 ITR 205 SCC @ 211 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648]. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court in ‘SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURSHOTTAM 22 TIWARI’, (2001) 3 SCC 179 while dealing with the expression ‘to be a question of law involving in the case’ held that ‘to be a question of law involving in the case’, there must be first a foundation for it laid in pleadings and the questions emerged from sustainable findings of fact arrived at by courts of fact and it must be necessary to decide that question of law…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Prasadhini Enterprises Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits

Bench: The Hon' Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa Regular Second Appeal No.390/2012 (Res)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.390/2012 (RES) BETWEEN: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISTION & TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS ACT, 1970) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.7, BHIKAIJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066. WITH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT MAKERS TOWERS, 7TH FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI-400005. NOW ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, DALAMAL HOUSE, J.B. MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. REPTD…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Softbrands India

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

…1/80 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/W I.T.A.No.537/2015 I.T.A.No.536/2015 Between: 1. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Buildings, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., Prestige Obelisk, Level-9 Kasturba Road Bangalore-560001 PAN:AAFCS9041K.…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Softbrands India

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

…1/80 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/W I.T.A.No.537/2015 I.T.A.No.536/2015 Between: 1. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Buildings, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., Prestige Obelisk, Level-9 Kasturba Road Bangalore-560001 PAN:AAFCS9041K.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Sri G. Mahesh Babu

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: ANIS,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

…ntitled to future prospect as the deceased had a permanent job of Assistant Teacher. In para No.24 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “24. In Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit [(1996) 3 SCC 179] the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah [(2003) 3 SCC 148] the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the Page 9 of…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

…rmining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.” 19. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 3 SCC 179, a three-judge Bench of this Court observed that: “A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be ‘substantial’ a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

…ng the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.” 15 17. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 3 SCC 179, a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court has observed that: “A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be ‘substantial’ a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

…ng the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.” 16 18. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 3 SCC 179, a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court has observed that: “A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be ‘substantial’ a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision…

Commisisoner of IncomeTax vs. M/S Bommana Saree Mandir [P] Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA ITA No. 34 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 3, 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla …Appellant Versus M/s Him Knit Feb. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Vandana Kuthiala & Mr.Diwan Singh Negi, Advocates, for the appellant. For the Respondent: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Advocate, for the responden…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s Satyasai Bhavani Hsopitals Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd