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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

capital importing countries, that is, developing nations. Here comes the principle of nexus, for the nexus of the right to tax is in the source rule. It is founded on the right of a country to tax the income earned from a source located in the said State, irrespective of the country of the residence of the recipient

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has rightly been made. It is also argued that Section 40 of the Act begins with a non obstante clause and has an overriding effect on Sections 3 to 38 of the Act and therefore, in case, any deduction is claimed under

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has rightly been made. It is also argued that Section 40 of the Act begins with a non obstante clause and has an overriding effect on Sections 3 to 38 of the Act and therefore, in case, any deduction is claimed under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has rightly been made. It is also argued that Section 40 of the Act begins with a non obstante clause and has an overriding effect on Sections 3 to 38 of the Act and therefore, in case, any deduction is claimed under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

195 of the Act. Hence the assessee herein cannot be considered as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. 25. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) for the years under consideration and direct the AO to delete the demand raised u/s 201(1) of the Act and also the consequential interest charged

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

1 to the said Section except in respect of capital gains and share premium amount is not a capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT.LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

1 to the said Section except in respect of capital gains and share premium amount is not a capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

1 to the said Section except in respect of capital gains and share premium amount is not a capital gain earned. It is urged that since, the tribunal has failed to determine the core issue with regard to colorable devise adopted by the 15 assessee, to evade tax, therefore, the matter be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh

M/S ARASOR CORPORATION vs. M/S XALTED INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT LTD

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

capital stock; provided, however, that subsection (i) of this section shall not apply to nonstock corporations. 29 8 Del. C. 1953, § 312; 56 Del. Laws, c.50; 59 Del. Laws, c. 106, § 16; 64 Del. Laws, c. 112, § 56; 66 Del. Laws, c. 352, §11; 68 Del. Laws, c. 163, § 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 587, § 29, 30; 73 Del. Laws

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

195 of the Act. 7. It is also argued that since payment to non resident was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS 16 was deducted on the payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has rightly been made. It is also

DR SWAMY MANJUNATH S T vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

195 68TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560010 10. DR SHRUTHI T S D/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTAHALI VILLAGE SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562117 11. DR SHIVARANJINI D/O LATE VERAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ADDRESS HULLEKERE BEVINAHALLI POST, MANDYA - 571401 3 12. DR IDRIS KAMRAN S/O ASHFAQUE AHMED WAHEED AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING

DR SHARATH B RAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

195 68TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560010 10. DR SHRUTHI T S D/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTAHALI VILLAGE SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562117 11. DR SHIVARANJINI D/O LATE VERAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ADDRESS HULLEKERE BEVINAHALLI POST, MANDYA - 571401 3 12. DR IDRIS KAMRAN S/O ASHFAQUE AHMED WAHEED AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

195 68TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560010 10. DR SHRUTHI T S D/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTAHALI VILLAGE SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562117 11. DR SHIVARANJINI D/O LATE VERAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ADDRESS HULLEKERE BEVINAHALLI POST, MANDYA - 571401 3 12. DR IDRIS KAMRAN S/O ASHFAQUE AHMED WAHEED AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

195 68TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560010 10. DR SHRUTHI T S D/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTAHALI VILLAGE SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562117 11. DR SHIVARANJINI D/O LATE VERAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ADDRESS HULLEKERE BEVINAHALLI POST, MANDYA - 571401 3 12. DR IDRIS KAMRAN S/O ASHFAQUE AHMED WAHEED AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING

DR ARJUN KALASAPUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

195 68TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560010 10. DR SHRUTHI T S D/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTAHALI VILLAGE SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562117 11. DR SHIVARANJINI D/O LATE VERAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ADDRESS HULLEKERE BEVINAHALLI POST, MANDYA - 571401 3 12. DR IDRIS KAMRAN S/O ASHFAQUE AHMED WAHEED AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

1) of the Constitution. Hence, he submitted that the impugned Amendment as well as the Notification dated 04.08.2020 issued by the respondent/Law School may be struck down. -: 87 :- (D) Submissions of Sri.Prabhuling K.Navadgi, learned Advocate General along with Sri.Vikram Huilgol, AGA, on behalf of Respondent No.1/State: 54. Learned Advocate General at the outset submitted that the incorporation of the respondent/University