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

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Capital Gain of Rs.26,88,34,949/- under Section 54 of the Act in respect of an investment made in acquiring a new residential house property to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/-. The Assessing Officer held that 4 investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed the claim

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

253 of the Act. 21. Section 254 of the Act delineates the powers of the Tribunal. We are not presently deciding the taxability part of such buy-back of the shares by the Company because that would essentially depend upon the fresh inquiry or investigation upon remand by the learned Tribunal vide impugned Order dated Date of Judgment

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

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

5) (1973) 87 ITR 539 (SC) Raza Textiles Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur (6) (2003) 128 Taxman 190 Hemalatha Gargya vs. CIT (7) (2013) 40 taxman.com 545 Vodafone India Ltd., vs. Union of India (8) (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer (9) (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) Commissioner of Income

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

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

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

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners were before the DRP as against the Assessing Officer’s opinion in the Draft Assessment Order on two issues i.e., the arm’s length and the Rate. The Assessing Officer had opined that the petitioners would be liable to pay capital gains tax at the rate of 20% instead

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

P. D. PONNAPPA 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 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