State of Karnataka and Another v. All India Manufacturers Organisation and Others

4 SCC 683Reported decision2006#14157 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing State of Karnataka and Another v. All India Manufacturers Organisation and Others

Vaidya Srikantappa Sadashivaiah Srikanth, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore- 1, Bangalore

ITA 200/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(5)Section 54

…nd which was connected with C.A.Nos.3492- 94/2005 and other Civil Appeals. The said Civil Appeals were also dismissed on 20.04.2006 and the said judgment is reported as State of Karnataka and Another vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 683 (All India Manufacturers Organisation). Paragraph 79 of the said judgment reads as under: "79. The learned Single Judge erred in assuming that the lands acquired from places away from the main alignment of the road were not a part of the Project and that is the reason he was persuaded to hold that only 60% of the land acquisition was justified beca…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…dgments in CST v. Sai Publication Fund57 and the Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras (supra) was relied upon. It was urged that the revenue’s contention that statutory authorities’ claim for exemption is confined to the provision in Section 52 (2006) 4 SCC 683 53 1999 (2) SCR 195 (hereafter, “Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras”) 54 State of Karnataka v. Shreyas Papers Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2006 SC 865; Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. v. Union Of India (2007) 2 SCC 640; New Delhi Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab 1996 Supp 10 SCR 472; and Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G Sharma 1997 (3) SCR…

M/S. Hanumanthappa Chandrashekar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1223/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 46Section 96

…and which was connected with C.A.Nos.3492-94/2005 and other Civil Appeals. The said Civil Appeals were also dismissed on 20.04.2006 and the said judgment is reported as State of Karnataka and Another vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 683 (All India Manufacturers Organisation). Paragraph 79 of the said judgment reads as under: "79. The learned Single Judge erred in assuming that the lands acquired from places away from the main alignment of the road were not a part of the Project and that is the reason he was persuaded to hold that only 60% of the land acquisition was justified beca…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nokia India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2380/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi06 Dec 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 13(1) Vs. M/S Nokia India (P) Ltd. New Delhi 1 & 2 Floor, Tower A Sp Infocity Industrial Plot No.243 Udyog Vihar Ph I, Dundahera Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacn21790R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vikash Srivastava, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Hk Choudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2017 Date Of 06.12.17 Pronouncement Order Per Beena A Pillaithe Present Appeal Has Been Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 25/03/10 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2003-04 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.57,23,201/- Out Of Foreign Travelling Expenses Made By The Ao. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Comparables To 11 Companies & In Rejecting The Remaining 39 Comparables Selected By The Tpo For The

Section 142(1)

…turnover at around half of assessee’s turnover and leaving the upper limit uncapped. It is trite that law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This proposition has sanction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RN Gosain vs Yashpal Dhir (1992) 4 SCC 683. Under this rule, a person cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath. As TPO has himself applied lower limit at half of assessee’s turnover, there is justification in applying some upper limit as well. Taking a holistic view of the matter, we approve the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A) in the Page 14 of 17 ITA 2380/Del/2010, Assessme…

R Janardhana Babu vs. The Managing Director

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

WP/37528/2010HC Karnataka07 Jul 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

…has to be done only in terms of a collective dispute under Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act as held by the Supreme Court referred to above. The only exception is the 171 industrial establishment covered by Chapter V-B of the I.D. Act. (14) (1992)4 SCC 683 { R.N. GOSAIN .vs. YASHPAL DHIR} wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that having the employees accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and received the entire amount, they cannot approbate and reprobate. In the said Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraphs-9 and 10 as under: Para 9: xx xx By furnishing the said undertaki…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Sahakarnagar Credit Cooperative Society Ltd

Appeals are allowed in part

ITA/268/2015HC Karnataka08 Sept 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 4

…ny default on behalf of the assessee-company. 14. Learned senior counsel, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the following Judgments: [a] ‘STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER Vs. ALL INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANISATION AND OTHERS’ [(2006) 4 SCC 683] [b] ‘STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. NESTLE INDIA LTD., AND ANOTHER’ [(2004) 6 SCC 465] [c] ‘ORIENT WEAVING MILLS [P] LTD., AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS’ [AIR 1963 SC 98] 15. On the contrary, learned counsel Sri. K.M. Shivayogiswamy, appearing for the respondent-State would contend that Article 12 of the FWA deals with taxes. A…

Kamalsab S/O. Dawoodsab Savanur vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/79811/2013HC Karnataka13 Feb 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar Writ Petition No. 79811 Of 2013(Lr) Between Sri. Kamalsab S/O. Dawoodsab Savanur Age: 51 Years, Occ: Agriculture R/O. Kotigeri Oni, Hangal, Dist:Haveri. ... Petitioner (By Sri. D L Ladkhan, Advocate) & 1. The State Of Karnataka R/By Secretary Department Of Revenue M.S. Building, Bengaluru 2. The Land Tribunal, Hangal R/By Its Secretary Tq:Hangal, Dist: Haveri 3. Sri. Ramachandra Hemajippa Sugandhi Since Deceased By His Lrs 3A. Smt. Sunanda W/O. Krishna Sugandhi Age: Major, Occ: Household Work R/O. Bazar Galli, Near Chavadi Hangal, Dist: Haveri

…e filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N.)" viii) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DIGAMBAR [(1995) 4 SCC 683], “3. In the year 1991, respondent, an agriculturist of Vepani village in District Nandat : 30 : of Maharashtra, filed a writ petition, W. P. No. 3124/91 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench against the appellant, the State of Maharashtra. The relief sought in that writ petition was…