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

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

viii) The CIT, before exercising his jurisdiction under s. 263 must have material on record to arrive at a satisfaction. (ix) If the AO has made enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings on the relevant issues and the assessee has given detailed explanation by a letter in writing and the AO allows the claim on being satisfied with

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 SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

capital in nature. Further the Appellate Authority held that if certain expenses are to be reduced from the total turnover, deduction is to be calculated under Section 10A of the Act. The Appellate Authority also allowed set off of brought forward loss. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, the revenue filed appeal before the Income

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

56, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 032 5. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/ PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT & CHAIRMAN KIADB, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE -560 001 6. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD IV AND V FLOORS, KHANIJI BHAVAN, NO. 49, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

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

56, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 032 5. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/ PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT & CHAIRMAN KIADB, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE -560 001 6. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD IV AND V FLOORS, KHANIJI BHAVAN, NO. 49, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

56 acted as agent and has committed corrupt practice that which he was carrying Rs.1,20,00,000/- in Innova Car bearing KA 01 MH 4477 for distributing money to the electorate nearby the said car belongs to the State Government which was used as escort car for his father who is PW sitting minister and Hassan District In charge

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

capital gains and treated the sum of Rs.1,14,20,100/-, so declared, along with the unexplained cash of Rs.24,00,000/-, as income from other sources and subjected the same to tax under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessment was completed by order dated 17.07.2019. 4.3 Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

VIII. —An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.” 36.It is also relevant to refer Section

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

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

capital Rs.4,85,000/-, by order dated 26.02.2014. Similarly, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the Assessing Officer had disallowed the privilege fee of Rs.829,41,58,944/- and made disallowance under Section 14-A 10 of the Act in a sum of Rs.60

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2. The Tribunal as well as the first Appellate Authority, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided in favour of the Respondent Assessee that the “Distributable Surplus” paid by the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI to DIAGEO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as ‘DIAGEO’ for short), a subsidiary and Group Company of DIAGEO Plc, a United Kingdom based Liquor Conglomerate

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2. The Tribunal as well as the first Appellate Authority, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided in favour of the Respondent Assessee that the “Distributable Surplus” paid by the Respondent Assessee CHAMUNDI to DIAGEO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as ‘DIAGEO’ for short), a subsidiary and Group Company of DIAGEO Plc, a United Kingdom based Liquor Conglomerate

S B JAGADEESH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

56 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS 121 (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

56 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS 121 (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

56 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS 121 (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

56 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS 121 (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

56 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS 121 (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR