M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

gains on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an amount of Rs.1,47,79,298/- is to be taken as deemed profit on transfer of stock and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 clearly provides that it is not necessary to grant the relief of 8 specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. 6. It is also urged that where the language of the statute is clear an unambiguous, there is no room for application of either the doctrine of 'causes

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

239/- being income from other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim of interest paid to the financial institutions, which

M/S BEST TRADING & AGENCIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

239/- being income from other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 30.11.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim of interest paid to the financial institutions, which

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

239 ITR 502 (SC) and other High Court judgments in Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Charitable Trust (1981) 7 Taxman 178 (AP) = 131 ITR 479 and Radhaswami Satsang Sabha (1954) 25 ITR 472 (Allahabad) are correct and justified findings of fact. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act does not employ

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. 44.The impugned order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.653(Bang) 2015 for the assessment year 2010-11, wherein

DR SWAMY MANJUNATH S T vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

gain acceptance; (c) The contention of the petitioners that the Government Order dated 04.08.2018 refers to 2012 Act and that there is a thick nexus between the impugned Counselling Notification and the Allotment Letters issued to the candidates post counselling, even if assumed to be true, does not come to their aid as long as the compulsion to serve

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

gain acceptance; (c) The contention of the petitioners that the Government Order dated 04.08.2018 refers to 2012 Act and that there is a thick nexus between the impugned Counselling Notification and the Allotment Letters issued to the candidates post counselling, even if assumed to be true, does not come to their aid as long as the compulsion to serve

DR ARJUN KALASAPUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

gain acceptance; (c) The contention of the petitioners that the Government Order dated 04.08.2018 refers to 2012 Act and that there is a thick nexus between the impugned Counselling Notification and the Allotment Letters issued to the candidates post counselling, even if assumed to be true, does not come to their aid as long as the compulsion to serve

DR SHARATH B RAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

gain acceptance; (c) The contention of the petitioners that the Government Order dated 04.08.2018 refers to 2012 Act and that there is a thick nexus between the impugned Counselling Notification and the Allotment Letters issued to the candidates post counselling, even if assumed to be true, does not come to their aid as long as the compulsion to serve

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

gain acceptance; (c) The contention of the petitioners that the Government Order dated 04.08.2018 refers to 2012 Act and that there is a thick nexus between the impugned Counselling Notification and the Allotment Letters issued to the candidates post counselling, even if assumed to be true, does not come to their aid as long as the compulsion to serve

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

239 as well as 'ABDUL KAYOOM Vs. CIT' 44 ITR 689 (SC) and 'ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO. LTD. Vs. CIT' 177 ITR 377 (SC). 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record

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

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

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER