SRI B V ACHARYA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

capitation fee issue is concerned, the 18 submission made is that the writ petition filed in this regard by the students came to be dismissed by this court. Therefore, none of the offences alleged in the complaint can be said to have been, even remotely, made out against the petitioner and thus, it is clear that the entire complaint

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. VIKRAM REDDY

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 187C of the Companies Act, 1956 clearly shows that the beneficial owner of the shares was Sri.Madhusudhan Reddy in the firm BVRE. It was further held that the course adopted by the assessee was within the framework of law and was permissible. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gain of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. The appellant further declared that he had constructed a residential property during the year situate at 808/7 and 808/8 Kaikondanahalli, Sarjapur, Bangalore. The appellant claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,55,47,315/-. Before the assessing officer, the assessee agreed voluntarily to offer

M/S DIFFUSION ENGINEERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

capital expenditure and if it is revenue expenditure, then the provisions of Section 37 shall apply. In support of his contentions, reliance was placed on: (1) CIT vs SWARAJ ENGINES LIMITED – [309 ITR 443 (SC)] (2) CIT vs SHRIRAM PISTONS AND RINGS LTD – [307 ITR 363 (DEL)] (3) CIT vs EMPIRE JUTE

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

MR SAWARMAL AGARWAL vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 156 of the Act. 2. The petitioner is an individual. It is submitted that during the relevant assessment year the petitioner has sold equity shares of M/s PS(IT) Infra and Services Limited, had earned long term capital gain

SRI A NARAYANASWAMY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

capital gains were computed based on the said agreement? 2. Heard Smt. H. Vani, learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 19612 was conducted on 02.11.2001 and thereafter, a Notice dated 06.03.2002 under Section

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

156. DR. BOOBATHI RAJA S/O. GOPAL R, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 7, RR GARDENS, KAVUNDAMPALAYAM ROAD, EDAYARPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641025 157. DR. SHANMUGAPRIYA D D/O. DURAISAMY K, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 15/5,M PAPPAMPATTI, VAGARAYAMPALAYA, COIMBATORE 641 659 158. DR. KAUSHAL B S/O. DR. B KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 288, 12 B CROSS, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA

DR ARJUN KALASAPUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

156. DR. BOOBATHI RAJA S/O. GOPAL R, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 7, RR GARDENS, KAVUNDAMPALAYAM ROAD, EDAYARPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641025 157. DR. SHANMUGAPRIYA D D/O. DURAISAMY K, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 15/5,M PAPPAMPATTI, VAGARAYAMPALAYA, COIMBATORE 641 659 158. DR. KAUSHAL B S/O. DR. B KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 288, 12 B CROSS, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

156. DR. BOOBATHI RAJA S/O. GOPAL R, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 7, RR GARDENS, KAVUNDAMPALAYAM ROAD, EDAYARPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641025 157. DR. SHANMUGAPRIYA D D/O. DURAISAMY K, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 15/5,M PAPPAMPATTI, VAGARAYAMPALAYA, COIMBATORE 641 659 158. DR. KAUSHAL B S/O. DR. B KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 288, 12 B CROSS, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA

DR SWAMY MANJUNATH S T vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

156. DR. BOOBATHI RAJA S/O. GOPAL R, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 7, RR GARDENS, KAVUNDAMPALAYAM ROAD, EDAYARPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641025 157. DR. SHANMUGAPRIYA D D/O. DURAISAMY K, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 15/5,M PAPPAMPATTI, VAGARAYAMPALAYA, COIMBATORE 641 659 158. DR. KAUSHAL B S/O. DR. B KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 288, 12 B CROSS, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA

DR SHARATH B RAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

156. DR. BOOBATHI RAJA S/O. GOPAL R, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 7, RR GARDENS, KAVUNDAMPALAYAM ROAD, EDAYARPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641025 157. DR. SHANMUGAPRIYA D D/O. DURAISAMY K, AGED 28 YEARS NO. 15/5,M PAPPAMPATTI, VAGARAYAMPALAYA, COIMBATORE 641 659 158. DR. KAUSHAL B S/O. DR. B KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 27 YEARS NO. 288, 12 B CROSS, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

156/- spent on modification of building, a sum of Rs.3,60,694/- spent on corporate office repairs and Rs.21,485/-spent on purchase of paintings is a revenue expenditure and no depreciation is allowable over the same contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in 49 ITR 160? A-6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

gainful employment except his influence in political background of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his nomination

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

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

156. Nirupama Prasad, d/o E.V Raghava Rao, aged about 56 years, Working as pharma Assistant, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 157. Sherin Achuthan Kutty, d/o M K Ramadas, aged about 56 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 158. Saraswathi R Maiya d/o H V Anathaswamy, aged about

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital Age, the internet

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 8 of the Act provides for the authorities of the School which are five in number. Section 18 of the Act which deals with authorities and Officers of the School etc., states that the authorities of the School and their composition, powers, functions and other matters relating to them, the officers of the School and their appointment, powers, functions