SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

58 Provided that it shall not apply to a math or temple attached to or managed by math.” In order to see whether any different intention appears in the new Act, it would be useful to make a reference to similar provisions in the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. In the Rent Act, 1999 the following section was inserted: “70. Repeal

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable purpose. The levy as also the payment was by reason of the regulatory power vested in the assessee-club to regulate racing in accordance with the rules framed by it, non-compliance with which would result in the jockeys, trainers and others being excluded from participating in racing. The levy had direct nexus with their activity as participants

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable purpose. The levy as also the payment was by reason of the regulatory power vested in the assessee-club to regulate racing in accordance with the rules framed by it, non-compliance with which would result in the jockeys, trainers and others being excluded from participating in racing. The levy had direct nexus with their activity as participants

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

58,029/-. Thereafter the assessee filed Revision Petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Commissioner of Income Tax allowed the revision by an order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure-E) and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in view of registration of the petitioner under Section 12A of the Act in respect of the impugned assessment years. The order

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

58,029/-. Thereafter the assessee filed Revision Petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Commissioner of Income Tax allowed the revision by an order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure-E) and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in view of registration of the petitioner under Section 12A of the Act in respect of the impugned assessment years. The order

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

58,029/-. Thereafter the assessee filed Revision Petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Commissioner of Income Tax allowed the revision by an order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure-E) and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in view of registration of the petitioner under Section 12A of the Act in respect of the impugned assessment years. The order

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

58,029/-. Thereafter the assessee filed Revision Petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Commissioner of Income Tax allowed the revision by an order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure-E) and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in view of registration of the petitioner under Section 12A of the Act in respect of the impugned assessment years. The order

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

58. In light of the above, the State law on which reliance has been placed is extracted as under: A. The relevant definition and provisions of the Land Reforms Act are as under: “2. Definitions.—(A) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.— (1) “Agriculture” includes.— (a) acquaculture; (aa) horticulture; (b) the raising of crops, grass or garden produce

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

58. In light of the above, the State law on which reliance has been placed is extracted as under: A. The relevant definition and provisions of the Land Reforms Act are as under: “2. Definitions.—(A) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.— (1) “Agriculture” includes.— (a) acquaculture; (aa) horticulture; (b) the raising of crops, grass or garden produce

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

charitable trust. It is also argued that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. It is also urged that decision relied upon by the revenue in the case of AMITABH BACHAN supra does not support the case of the revenue as in the aforesaid case, the assessee had withdrawn the claim

SRI B V ACHARYA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

charitable trust called “Smt.Lakshmamma B.M.Sreenivasaiah Charities” and the trust was a registered trust and came into existence on 14.12.1995. It was also averred in the complaint that the trust was founded as per the will of late B.S.Narayan, son of late B.M.Sreenivasaiah and as per the trust deed, the complainant and one Sathyanarayana Swamy were appointed as the first

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

charitable trust with the object of, inter alia, establishing, maintaining and running of a model law college in India. The BCI Trust formed the National Law School of India Society—which was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, comprising members of the Bar and legal academics to establish a leading national institution for legal studies. The Society approached

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE 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

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

RAJAPPA vs. THE 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

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