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

22 : In our view, there arises no question of any unjust enrichment to the appellant Company.” vi) TUKARAM KANA JOSHI AND OTHERS VS. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS [(2013) 1 SCC 353], “13. The question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

22. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not condoning the delay of 350 days in filling appeal before the Tribunal even though there was sufficient and bonafide cause for such delay has been explained by the appellant and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? 23. Whether the Tribunal was justified

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

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

22 OFF.P.B. ROAD, YELLAPUR ONI HUBLI. PIN. 580028 3. JUZAR A MAGAR AGED 56 YEARS OCCUPATION. BUSINESS PARTNER M/S UPKAR AND UPKAR (INDIA) OFF.P.B. ROAD, YELLAPUR ONI HUBLI. PIN. 580028 4. SRI. SHABBIR A MAGAR(GABAN) AGED 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION. BUSINESS PARTNER M/S UPKAR AND UPKAR (INDIA) OFF.P.B. ROAD, YELLAPUR ONI HUBLI. PIN. 580028 RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. ARAVIND D KULKARNI

ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed answering the question raised in the appeal

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

22, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SHAILENDRA BHANDARI S/O DILIP BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS … APPELLANT [BY SRI K S RAMABHADRAN, ADV.] AND: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1) BANGALORE. … RESPONDENT [BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.] THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING

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:

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 and to arrive at a compromise

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

M/S ASHOK KUMAR BACHAWAR (HUF) vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.S.Dinesh Kumar Writ Petition No. 106714/2016 (T-Tar) & Writ Petition No.106796/2016 Between : M/S. Ashok Kumar Bachawat (Huf) Plot No.4, Adarsha Colony, Radio Park, Bellary-583101, Karnataka (Represented By Mr.Ashok Kumar Bachawat S/O Shir. Bhikarechand Bachawat Karta Of Huf Aged About 58 Years). ... Petitioner (By Sri B. G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate) & : 1. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Represented By Its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. The Commissioner Of Central Excise No.71, Club Road, Belgaum-590001 3. The Joint Commissioner Of Service Tax Office Of The Commissioner Of Central Excise No.71, Club Road, Belgaum-590001. ... Respondents These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Impugned Order Dated 29.02.2016/04.03.2016 Is Enclosed As Annexure-D, Passed By Respondent No.3.

22,680/- collected by the petitioner as taxable value in terms of Section 67 of the Act. Further he confirmed the demand of Rs.35,43,585/- towards service tax ‘inclusive of education cess’, payable for the period 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2008 under Section 73(2) of the Act. In addition, he confirmed the demand of interest under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD.,

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

22 of the Act? ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the interest components paid by the assessee to the Bank is an allowable business expenditure despite the assessee not furnishing any particulars to substantiate its claim regarding this expense? 2. When we proceeded to consider question No.1, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- assessee, Sri.Shankar, submitted

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

22. He read out the relevant portions from Sri H.M.Seervai’s Constitution of India, a Critical Commentary, Fourth Edition, Volume 3 to buttress his submission that there is nothing in our Constitution which creates any fetter on the legislature’s jurisdiction to amend the laws with retrospective effect and validate the invalid laws or invalid executive acts and notifications

SMT RINKU CHAKRABORTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.40052/2018 (T-It) Between

CONDONE THE DELAY & ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Date of Order 24-09-2018 W.P.No.40052/2018 Smt. Rinku Chakraborthy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2/5 ORDER Mrs. Vani H, Adv. for Petitioner. The petitioner/assessee-Smt.Rinku Chakraborthy has filed this writ petition in this Court on 07.09.2018 aggrieved

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

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

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

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

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

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

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

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

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

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

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

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

22, 39.” 116 19. It has been noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the indica for levy of fee as indicated in Shirur Mutt’s case referred to supra was too technical and rigid and was not in tune with the requirement of the prevailing social conditions and held that there is no generic difference between

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

22, 39.” 116 19. It has been noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the indica for levy of fee as indicated in Shirur Mutt’s case referred to supra was too technical and rigid and was not in tune with the requirement of the prevailing social conditions and held that there is no generic difference between

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

22, 39.” 116 19. It has been noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the indica for levy of fee as indicated in Shirur Mutt’s case referred to supra was too technical and rigid and was not in tune with the requirement of the prevailing social conditions and held that there is no generic difference between