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 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, in which he had specifically pleaded that the land in question was originally granted to his grandfather one Sri.Bheemabhovi, S/o Dasabhovi. That said Bheemabhovi along with his two sons namely Erappa @ Erabhovi, Dasappa @ Dasabhovi, the father and uncle respectively of the original petitioner jointly had executed

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

condone delay in filing Form No.10 and consider the claim of assessee with regard to claim under section 11(2) even when the assessing authority had rightly denied claim in accordance with law? Date of Judgment 30-08-2018 I.T.A.No.170/2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Anr. Vs. Mookambika Temple. 5/13 3. The learned counsel for Revenue submits that substantial

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

32 and 33. As the said finding is not reproduced by the Tribunal in its order, we find it appropriate to reproduce the same. 8. When CIT (Appeals) was considering the applicability of the decision in the case of CIT VS. VEERABHADRA INDUSTRIES reported in 240 ITR 5 (AP) while distinguishing the said decision, it has been interalia recorded

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

32 ORDER DATED 30.07.2021 PASSED BY MAGISTRATE OF JMFC-III COURT, BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 276 CC OF I.T. ACT, AND RESTORE THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.282/2016 FOR TRIAL. IN CRL.A.100090/2022 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

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

32 and 33. As the said finding is not reproduced by the Tribunal in its order, we find it appropriate to reproduce the same. 8. When CIT (Appeals) was considering the applicability of the decision in the case of CIT VS. VEERABHADRA INDUSTRIES reported in 240 ITR 5 (AP) while distinguishing the said decision, it has been interalia recorded

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

32. Sri H. Jayakar Shetty, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Union Government in W.P.Nos.39434/2013, 44827-44830/2011, 51033/2012 and 2145/2013 submits that a competent legislature can always validate a law which has been declared by courts to be invalid, provided the infirmities and vitiating factors noticed in the declaratory judgment are removed or cured. Such

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

32 and 33. As the said finding is not reproduced by the Tribunal in its order, we find it appropriate to reproduce the same. 13 8. When CIT (Appeals) was considering the applicability of the decision in the case of CIT VS. VEERABHADRA INDUSTRIES reported in 240 ITR 5 (AP) while distinguishing the said decision, it has been interalia recorded

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

32 of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to the said provision, it was responsible for optimum scheduling and dispatch of electricity within a State in accordance with the contracts entered into with the licencees or the generating companies operating in that State for monitoring grid operations, keeping accounts of the 5 quantity of electricity transmitted through the State Grid, exercising

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 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

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

32. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person inspite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

32. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person inspite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

32. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person inspite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

32. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person inspite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

32. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person inspite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

32. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person inspite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

32. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person inspite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

32. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person inspite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely