COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the respective issues as contended by the Assessing

DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

purchase of infrastructure bonds could not be made by her by issuing a cheque when another large value transaction for property advance was effected by her while remaining outside the country. 3. In view of the above and the fact that with the under the modern technology- enabled banking system, physical presence in India is not necessary, there does

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

term `applied’ has wider connotation. 6. Depending upon the normal accounting practices adopted by the assessee in ordinary course of business, if a provision for an Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another vs. Ohio University Christ College 21/47 expenditure is made in a particular year and the amount in question

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

B YUVARAJ vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

SRI B S PATIL vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

BORALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

S B JAGADEESH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

SRI SANJAY JAYARAM vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge

R NAGARATHNA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

long as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Hence, it is contended that on account of KLGP Act- 2011 provides for only summary trial, the Act prevails over the Code. It is contended that for offences under the KLGP Act, it ought to be tried as warrant case as otherwise, the accused would be deprived of procedure for discharge