M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital gains to be taxed in the hands of the recipient share holder, viz., Mauritius Holding Company in the present case, in India. Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 16/86 18. He further submitted that the said Indo- Mauritius DTAA, of course now stands

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

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, denied to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section 2

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee was a shareholder in two companies viz., Pearl Insulation Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Pearl Metal Products Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had transferred the shares held by him in the aforesaid companies on 21.08.2008 resulting in Long Term Capital Gains. The assessee

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

253(4) of the Act? (2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative; Whether impugned order dated 15 31.01.2014 – Annexure-R passed by first respondent is liable to be interfered for any reason whatsoever? (3) What order? RE: POINT No.(1) 11. Learned Advocate appearing for respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability

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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gains of business or profession”. It is not the case of assessee that the expenditure incurred by them is covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the Act, and even if that was so the question of allowing the expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act would not arise. 18. In our opinion, the expenditure towards the religious funds

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

253 ITR 0749 (Guj). 29.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee relied upon Section 309(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, which reads as under “309. Remuneration of directors.-(1) The remuneration payable to the directors of a company, including any managing or whole- time director, shall be determined, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of section 198 and this

UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED vs. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-2

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

2. Sri. Percy Pardiwalla, the learned Senior Counsel, submits that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the Assessment Orders have been passed incorporating the directions issued by the DRP on 20.07.2018 and these Assessment Orders have been called in question by the petitioners in their respective appeals under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners were

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

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

DR ARJUN KALASAPUR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

253 29. DR VARUN B R S/O RENUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT # 40/41, JAGAJYOTHINAGAR 4TH CROSS, MEI LAYOUT WEST, NAGASANDRA POST,BANGALORE-560 073 23 30. DR NISHANTH LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O LAKSHIMANTHA B R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.647, 4TH CROSS,3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034 31. DR VINOD GOWDA K H S/O HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

253 29. DR VARUN B R S/O RENUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT # 40/41, JAGAJYOTHINAGAR 4TH CROSS, MEI LAYOUT WEST, NAGASANDRA POST,BANGALORE-560 073 23 30. DR NISHANTH LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O LAKSHIMANTHA B R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.647, 4TH CROSS,3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034 31. DR VINOD GOWDA K H S/O HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT

DR PRESTEENA MATHEW vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

253 29. DR VARUN B R S/O RENUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT # 40/41, JAGAJYOTHINAGAR 4TH CROSS, MEI LAYOUT WEST, NAGASANDRA POST,BANGALORE-560 073 23 30. DR NISHANTH LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O LAKSHIMANTHA B R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.647, 4TH CROSS,3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034 31. DR VINOD GOWDA K H S/O HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT

DR SWAMY MANJUNATH S T vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

253 29. DR VARUN B R S/O RENUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT # 40/41, JAGAJYOTHINAGAR 4TH CROSS, MEI LAYOUT WEST, NAGASANDRA POST,BANGALORE-560 073 23 30. DR NISHANTH LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O LAKSHIMANTHA B R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.647, 4TH CROSS,3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034 31. DR VINOD GOWDA K H S/O HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT

DR SHARATH B RAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

253 29. DR VARUN B R S/O RENUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT # 40/41, JAGAJYOTHINAGAR 4TH CROSS, MEI LAYOUT WEST, NAGASANDRA POST,BANGALORE-560 073 23 30. DR NISHANTH LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O LAKSHIMANTHA B R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.647, 4TH CROSS,3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034 31. DR VINOD GOWDA K H S/O HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR BHARATI SWAMIGALU, KUDLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 227. 3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR BHARATI SWAMIGALU, KUDLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 227. 3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES