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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WEIZMANN HOMES LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

36(1)(viii)(e) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in Section 28. (viii) [in respect of any special reserve created [and maintained] by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing long-term finance for [industrial or agricultural development

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

36 and not being in the nature of 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

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

36. The salvo fired by Mr. Poovayya has met with a barrage of submissions submitted by Mr. A.S.Ponnanna, the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. D. Ashwathappa, Additional Government Advocate, Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar, Mr. S. S. Naganand and Mr. S.P. Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel, and by Mr. Zeric Dastur and Mr. Faisal Sherwani, the learned counsel. Instead of individually

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Capital gains” arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where- (i) such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; (ii) such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding, the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Capital gains” arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where- (i) such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; (ii) such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding, the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

In the result, the above appeal is allowed and the

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

viii. Section 14 of the Act of 1932 deals with the property belonging to the partnership firm, if rights and interest in the property originally brought into the stock of the firm; ix. The books of accounts of the assessee used to disclose various properties owned by the assessee though these properties are not registered in the name

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India v. CIT [317 ITR 218] and M/s. Sterling Foods v. CIT [237 ITR 579] that any ancillary

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

viii) inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration; (ix) legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence; or (x) the evidence has been misread…” These tests are stated to be illustrative and in no way exhaustive of the powers of the High Court to entertain an appeal, if there is other substantive ground of law. It hardly needs

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

viii) The Government Order levying the privilege fee is passed purposefully only at the fag end of the financial year. (ix) The respondent-Company is parting with its taxable profits to the Government under the name of `privilege fee.’ (x) The provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) would be applicable. 11 (xi) The privilege fee does not specify the definition

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

viii) The Government Order levying the privilege fee is passed purposefully only at the fag end of the financial year. (ix) The respondent-Company is parting with its taxable profits to the Government under the name of `privilege fee.’ (x) The provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) would be applicable. 11 (xi) The privilege fee does not specify the definition

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains from the said business of manufacture and sale of liquor by M/S. CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY was not assessable in its hands ? [iii] Whether the method of Accounting or entries made in the Books of Accounts by the Respondent Assessee or maintaining the Bank Accounts under the close control and supervision of DIAGEO INDIA PRIVATE Date of Judgment