ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice M.G.S. Kamal Writ Petition No. 9257 Of 2014 (Sc/St) Between:

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2004, writ petitions filed for quashing of the notification in the year 2009 have to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the litigants who dare to abuse the process of the Court in disregard

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

condone the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. In our view, the High Court was also not right in ordering restoration of land to the respondents on the ground that the land acquired was not used for which it had been acquired. It is well-settled position in law that after passing the award and taking possession under

M/S CONFIDENT GROUP vs. MR. AKHIL C

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N S SANJAY GOWDA

condonation of delay, which came to be rejected on 28.05.2019 and the application filed to set aside the order placing the judgment debtors exparte, also came to be rejected by order dated 05.07.2019. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the decree holder, District Commission by order dated 23.10.2019 - Annexure-J (hereinafter referred to as 'original order') allowed

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:

21 says ‘award of Lok Adalats’. Section 22 stipulats powers of Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat. 54. Organization of Lok Adalat is as such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction for the areas. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 of Legal Services Authority Act which stipulates as follows: “(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine

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

21 HUBLI. PIN. 580028 RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. ARAVIND D KULKARNI & SHRI. V. G. PATIL ADVS. FOR R1 & R2 SHRI ARAVIND D KULKARNI ADV. FOR R3) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (4) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2021 PASSED BY THE MAGISTRATE OF JMFC-III COURT, BELAGAVI RECORDING THE CLOSURE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S GANGAGEN BIOTECHNOLOGIES P LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed following the judgment in the aforesaid case

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21-03-2012 PASSED IN ITA 783/2009, ON THE - - 2 FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS N. KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: - ORDER The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by this

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

21. Relying on the Apex Court’s decision in the case of RAICHURMATHAM PRABHAKAR AND ANOTHER v. 31 RAWATMAL DUGAR reported in (2004) 4 SCC 766, he submits that in case of conflict between the plain language of the provision and the meaning of the heading or title, the heading or title would not control the meaning which is clearly

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

condonation of delay in filing the return under Section 119 of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148 of the Act provides a remedy to the revenue and is not a remedy to the assessee. It is also submitted that proceeding under Section 148 can be initiated only in respect of such income which escapes assessment

M/S ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result appeal fails and it is hereby

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,AJIT J GUNJAL

21 - section 245C on or after the 1st day of June, 2007] [(1A) An immunity granted to a person under sub-section (1) shall stand withdrawn if such person fails to pay any sum specified in the order of settlement passed under sub-section (4) of section 245D within the time specified in such order or within such further time

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

21,271 -------------------- Total Rs.15,53,99,921 ------------------- 5. The appellant’s case was selected for scrutiny, subsequently, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the assessing officer accepting the returned income declared by the appellant. Thereafter, the revisional authority invoking the provisions under Section 263 of the Act, set-aside the scrutiny assessment, without

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

M/S CATHODIC CONTROL CO LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision