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

Section 6(3)declaration." 12. If the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that did not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land. As already noticed, the State Government in this regard has already initiated proceedings

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

condone the delay as the D.C. order is unjust hence please give the Poor petitioner as an opportunity The grant is free grant and probation period is 20 years, not 10 years as held by D.C. which concludes that finding someone who is illegal with reversed the A.C. order A.C. order is perfectly correct view accordance grant rules prevailing kindly

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

24,480/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee under Section 143(1) of the Act and demanded Rs.1,44,170/-. 3. The assessee thereupon filed the request for 5 rectification under Section 154 of the Act and revise the demand raised by the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid request for rectification was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

24 and the balance of interest which does not qualify for deduction u/s24, will have to be allowed u/s 36. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the interest paid by the assessee to Corporation Bank and to Jammu and Kashmir Bank, like any other business expenditure, and the resultant loss, if any, to be set off against property

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

24 SHRADDHA BUILDING TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI PIN. 590006 ..APPELLANT (By Sri. Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) AND 1 . M/S MAGAR AND MAGAR INDIA PARTNERSHIP FIRM OCCUPATION. BUSINESS, OFF.P.B. ROAD, YALLAPUR ONI HUBLI.PIN.580028 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER SHRI ABBAS F MAGAR. 2 . SHRI. ABBAS F MAGAR AGED 46 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS MANAGING PARTNER M/S MAGAR AND MAGAR(INDIA) OFF.P.B. ROAD, YELLAPUR ONI HUBLI

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI MOHD.ASADULLA

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

24-08- 2011 passed in ITA No.1311 of 2006, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N KUMAR J., made the following:- O R D E R The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 24.8.2011 whereunder this Court dismissed

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

24,944/-, the loss claimed for the year 2004- 05 of Rs.5,23,18,280/- was not allowable as the return filed for the said year was belated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – V, Bangalore, inter alia - 5 - contending that there was a delay of one day in filing

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

24 and the balance of interest which does not qualify for deduction u/s24, will have to be allowed u/s 36. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the interest paid by the 10 assessee to Corporation Bank and to Jammu and Kashmir Bank, like any other business expenditure, and the resultant loss, if any, to be set off against

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

24. He submits that the Recommendations concerning the Status of Teachers are adopted on 05.10.1966 by the Special Intergovernmental Conference pursuant to the deliberation of the U.N.E.S.C.O. (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in co-operation with the I.L.O. (International Labour Organization). 25. He sought to draw the support from the Apex Court’s judgment in the case

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

24 and the balance of interest which does not qualify for deduction u/s24, will have to be allowed u/s 36. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the interest paid by the assessee to Corporation Bank and to Jammu and Kashmir Bank, like any other business expenditure, and the resultant loss, if any, to be set off against property

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 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

24 - 245C(1) is also required to be complied and non- compliance of the said provision or if a application made to the Settlement Commission in a given case is not satisfying the criteria then grant of immunity would not arise at all and as such while granting immunity from prosecution and imposition of penalty it is incumbent upon

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding