M/S N.M.D.C vs. THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

Bench: R-1.

ii. The statutory contribution made to DMF and NMET as per the MMDR Act, 1957 are also part of the consideration payable for the Licensing services for right to use minerals including exploration and evaluation. iii. The supply is of Licensing services for right to use minerals including exploration and evaluation and value of each supply of services includes royalty

KAMALSAB S/O. DAWOODSAB SAVANUR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar Writ Petition No. 79811 Of 2013(Lr) Between Sri. Kamalsab S/O. Dawoodsab Savanur Age: 51 Years, Occ: Agriculture R/O. Kotigeri Oni, Hangal, Dist:Haveri. ... Petitioner (By Sri. D L Ladkhan, Advocate) & 1. The State Of Karnataka R/By Secretary Department Of Revenue M.S. Building, Bengaluru 2. The Land Tribunal, Hangal R/By Its Secretary Tq:Hangal, Dist: Haveri 3. Sri. Ramachandra Hemajippa Sugandhi Since Deceased By His Lrs 3A. Smt. Sunanda W/O. Krishna Sugandhi Age: Major, Occ: Household Work R/O. Bazar Galli, Near Chavadi Hangal, Dist: Haveri

10 : party. The principle is to a great extent similar to though not identical with, the exercise of discretion in the court of chancery. The principle has been clearly state by Sri.Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Company Vs Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abraham Farewall, and John Kemp (1874) 5 PC 221 at p.239 as follows: “Now the doctrine of laches

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

delay of 46 days in filing the above captioned appeals, is condoned. 2. The Revenue have filed the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [Tribunal] in ITA No.1367/Bang/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

condoned by the appellate authority and the same came : 11 : to be rejected in further appeal before the ITAT. The assessee was under a bonafide impression that a fresh order of the assessing authority shall be passed before further course of action is taken. However, when the consequential order was passed by the assessing officer, an appeal was filed before

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES vs. MR. GOPAL S HEBBALLI

Appeals are dismissed as not

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice K. Natarajan Criminal Appeal No.100124/2022 C/W Criminal Appeal Nos. 100123/2022, 100125/2022, 100126/2022, 100127/2022, 100130/2022, 100131/2022, 100132/2022, 100133/2022, 100134/2022, 100135/2022, 100136/2022, 100137/2022, 100138/2022, 100139/2022, 100140/2022, 100141/2022, 100142/2022, 100143/2022, 100144/2022, 100145/2022, 100172/2022, 100173/2022, 100026/2022, 100077/2022, 100078/2022, 100079/2022, 100080/2022, 100081/2022, 100082/2022, 100083/2022, 100084/2022, 100085/2022, 100086/2022, 100090/2022, 100091/2022, 100092/2022, 100093/2022, 100094/2022, 100095/2022, 100114/2022

25 IN CRL.A.100081/2022 BETWEEN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PLOT NO. 123 SARAF COLONY, KHANAPUR ROAD SHRADDHA BUILDING TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI PIN. 590006 ...APPELLANT (By Sri. Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) AND 1 . M/S UPKAR AND MAGAR INDIA PARTNERSHIP FIRM, OCC- BUSINESS, OFF.P.B. ROAD, YALLAPUR ONI, HUBLI PIN-580028, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER SHRI. TAIZUN

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BELLAD and COMPANY

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Regular First Appeal No.100154 Of 2015 (Par/Pos) Between:

25. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates as follows: - 28 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6906 RFA No. 100154 of 2015 “The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.” 26. When the plaintiffs have pleaded

WEIR BDK VALVES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.Manohar W.P. No.72328 & W.P.Nos.72395-397/2012(T-Res) Between: Weir Bdk Valves, A Unit Of Weir India Private Limited., (Formserly B.D.K. Engineering Industries Limited) No.47/48, Gokul Road, Hubli – 580 030, Represented Herein By Its Head – Finance & Accounts, Mr.Lokesh Bhatia. ... Petitioner (By Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Adv. For M/S.King & Partridge, Advs) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit – 1) , D.C. Compound, Dharwad. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Kumta.

II) Quashing the demand notices dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure F – 1 to F4) issued by the 1st Respondent for the periods April 2008 to June 2008, July 2008 to 3 September 2008, October 2008 to December 2008 and January 2009 to March 2009 respectively. (III) Quashing of the endorsement dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure – K ) issued by the 2nd Respondent. (IV) Quashing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT

In the result, the appeal fails

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee’s case, the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay of 360 days by relying on the order of the Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji and others reported in 167 ITR page 471, medicine of the High Court in CIT V/s ISRO satellite Centre

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

25. He sought to draw the support from the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of UDAI RAM SHARMA AND OTHERS v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1968 SC 1138, wherein it is held that the Validating Acts cannot be struck down merely because the courts of law have declared actions taken earlier

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

ii) quote his permanent account number (PAN) in the statement except in the case where the deductor is an office of the Government; (iii) quote the permanent account number of all deductees; (iv) furnish particulars of the tax paid to the Central Government including book identification number or challan identification number, as the case may be; (v) furnish particulars

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

ii) quote his permanent account number (PAN) in the statement except in the case where the deductor is an office of the Government; (iii) quote the permanent account number of all deductees; (iv) furnish particulars of the tax paid to the Central Government including book identification number or challan identification number, as the case may be; (v) furnish particulars

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

ii) quote his permanent account number (PAN) in the statement except in the case where the deductor is an office of the Government; (iii) quote the permanent account number of all deductees; (iv) furnish particulars of the tax paid to the Central Government including book identification number or challan identification number, as the case may be; (v) furnish particulars

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

ii) quote his permanent account number (PAN) in the statement except in the case where the deductor is an office of the Government; (iii) quote the permanent account number of all deductees; (iv) furnish particulars of the tax paid to the Central Government including book identification number or challan identification number, as the case may be; (v) furnish particulars

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

ii) quote his permanent account number (PAN) in the statement except in the case where the deductor is an office of the Government; (iii) quote the permanent account number of all deductees; (iv) furnish particulars of the tax paid to the Central Government including book identification number or challan identification number, as the case may be; (v) furnish particulars

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

ii) quote his permanent account number (PAN) in the statement except in the case where the deductor is an office of the Government; (iii) quote the permanent account number of all deductees; (iv) furnish particulars of the tax paid to the Central Government including book identification number or challan identification number, as the case may be; (v) furnish particulars

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

ii) quote his permanent account number (PAN) in the statement except in the case where the deductor is an office of the Government; (iii) quote the permanent account number of all deductees; (iv) furnish particulars of the tax paid to the Central Government including book identification number or challan identification number, as the case may be; (v) furnish particulars

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

ii) quote his permanent account number (PAN) in the statement except in the case where the deductor is an office of the Government; (iii) quote the permanent account number of all deductees; (iv) furnish particulars of the tax paid to the Central Government including book identification number or challan identification number, as the case may be; (v) furnish particulars

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

ii) quote his permanent account number (PAN) in the statement except in the case where the deductor is an office of the Government; (iii) quote the permanent account number of all deductees; (iv) furnish particulars of the tax paid to the Central Government including book identification number or challan identification number, as the case may be; (v) furnish particulars